CAT/C/60/D/648/2015 of torture in Sri Lanka. The reviewer did not give any weight to the document as the complainant’s claims were found to be illogical and inconsistent. 6.7 The State party further argues that this claim was also considered by the Federal Magistrates Court and the Full Federal Court, which considered the matter again as the complainant claimed that the reviewer had denied him “procedural fairness by not disclosing to him the possibility that she might find that a Sri Lankan document produced by the appellant … might not be related to the appellant”. The Full Federal Court came to the conclusion that “the information in the document has an apparent weakness, which was both obvious and recognised by the appellant’s solicitors and registered migration agents when putting them forward”, and that it was “for the appellant to persuade the reviewer that the document did refer to him, despite the fact that on its face it did not, and to substantiate the claimed misspelling”. The Federal Magistrates Court also acknowledged that the reviewer had come to the view that, irrespective of the court document, the complainant would no longer be of interest to the Criminal Investigation Department. 6.8 The State party asserts that the claim has been thoroughly considered at all stages of assessing the complainant’s claims through the refugee status assessment process as well as judicial review. The complainant has not provided any further evidence or information to substantiate his claim that the document is evidence of his arrest by the Criminal Investigation Department. For completeness, the State party notes that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection has itself assessed the document and concluded that its authenticity, and therefore its validity as evidence of arrest by the Criminal Investigation Department, is questionable. Firstly, without the original it cannot be determined whether it is a translation of a genuine document. However, the inconsistency in the dates, fonts and formatting of the document indicates that information has been added, removed or copied over the top of what may have been a genuine translated copy. In addition, the translator’s stamp on the second page is partially obscured, which provides further evidence that the document is not the original and has been modified. 6.9 As regards the supporting document submitted to attest to the spelling error in the court document described above, despite purportedly being from the Magistrates Court, there is no indication that it has been translated or copied, and therefore it is reasonable to assume that it is an original document. However, there is no formal letterhead, the signatory has not printed their name, and therefore there are no features by which to identify the origins of the letter. The State party asserts that these omissions are such that the content of the document is questionable and cannot be substantiated by the usual indicators of a letter from a government institution. Therefore, the State party gives the content of the letter no weight as evidence of a spelling error in a genuine court document or the complainant’s alleged LTTE links or his arrest. 6.10 The State party further refers to the letter submitted by the complainant from the Member of Parliament, Packiyaselvam Ariyanethiran, in which he reiterates the complainant’s claims. In view of the lack of additional supporting evidence and the reasons given above for not accepting these claims, the State party does not consider that the letter from Mr. Ariyanethiran constitutes, in and of itself, sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims that the complainant is currently of interest to the Sri Lankan Government. It therefore assesses that there are no credible reasons or evidence to suggest that the complainant has been in the past, or is currently, of interest to the Criminal Investigation Department. 6.11 The State party refers to the complainant’s contention that it was an interpretation error which led to the second independent reviewer concluding that his claims were not credible since he could not identify his kidnappers. Even if these claims were to be accepted, the second reviewer considered that they had been embellished over time. 6.12 The State party refers to the fact that the complainant states that he did not bring up at first the fact that he had provided financial support to LTTE because it was not the primary reason he feared harm, believing the primary reason to be his application for an Australian visa. It also notes that during the second independent merits review, he stated it was because others in immigration detention had told him he would get into trouble for having provided such support. The State party asserts that it is illogical that the complainant 11