CAT/C/57/D/605/2014 noted that the author was not able to substantiate an alleged failure by the Tribunal in assessing the issue of complementary protection and noted that the Tribunal was plainly aware of the distinction between the test for protection under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, of 1951, and the test for protection under the complementary protection framework. It noted that the complainant’s assertion that the Tribunal had denied him an opportunity to address the “white van” abductions claims was not supported, as the complainant had had the opportunity to comment thereon. The Court also noted that the Tribunal had addressed the complainant’s claim that he feared harm because he was a Tamil who was born in the north-east of Sri Lanka and was among the most likely to be suspected of having links with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Finally, the Court rejected the complainant’s attempt to combine the individual elements of his claims in regard to his affiliation to particular social groups to demonstrate a real risk for him (e.g. “he was born in Trincomalee” or “he is a Hindu”) and concluded that the complainant’s grounds of appeal were not substantiated. 4.8 On 30 January 2014, the complainant, through his legal representative, made a request for ministerial intervention under sections 417 and 48B of the Migration Act 1958. During the protection application process, the complainant provided generalized reports on Sri Lanka in relation to the arbitrary deprivation of life, torture and cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment. The complainant also stated, for the first time, that he was a member of a Facebook group called “Cool Tamils”, in which prominent members of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam regularly make posts praising Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam activities and attempt to mobilize support against the Government of Sri Lanka. The ministerial intervention proceedings concluded that as the complainant did not have an existing profile with the Sri Lankan authorities that would place him at risk, it was highly unlikely that membership of a Facebook group alone would attract adverse attention resulting in serious or significant harm. The complainant’s claims did not meet the criteria for ministerial intervention, and the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection declined to exercise her powers as there were no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant was at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. Given the complainant’s reliance on general in-country information, and taking into account extensive country information in relation to Sri Lanka, particularly in regard to the return of failed asylum seekers, the State party concluded that the complainant did not demonstrate that he would be personally at risk. 11 4.9 Finally, the State party claims that the complainant’s submissions to the Committee do not establish the existence of additional grounds to show that he is at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The complainant’s reliance on further generalized information does not assist him in establishing that personal risk. Therefore, the State party concludes that the complainant’s claims are inadmissible and/or without merit. Additional information from the complainant 5. On 8 May 2015, the complainant submitted that the State party had begun proceedings to remove him. He had been granted a new bridging visa for six weeks and had been ordered to report to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection every two weeks and make an appointment with the International Organization for Migration to make arrangements for his return to Sri Lanka. The complainant claimed that he had been told by the case officer that interim measures put in place by the Committee were not relevant and that he would be detained in case of non-compliance. He also indicated that the State party had removed other persons despite requests for interim measures to halt their deportations. 11 6 See, for example, communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.3. GE.16-09596