CAT/C/60/D/708/2015 complainant’s lack of credibility was central in determining that his claims were not genuine and did not engage the State party’s non-refoulement obligations. 4.26 On 18 September 2015, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia dismissed the complainant’s application for review of the 2015 international treaties obligation assessment decision as it found that the information provided did not demonstrate that the assessment was carried out in violation of procedural fairness, or that there had been an error of law. 4.27 In relation to the new claim and evidence submitted by the complainant to the Committee that he was a member of LTTE, the State party submits that on the occasion of the international treaties obligation assessment, the Department accepted that the complainant supported LTTE, but that he did not have a profile of significance. 35 The State party reports that the Department has assessed the new evidence provided by the complainant, a photograph of the author holding an LTTE communication device and wearing an LTTE uniform. It found that it does not raise any new claim or change the complainant’s profile in terms of his past involvement with LTTE. 4.28 Regarding the new evidence as to the complainant’s mental health, the State party submits that the complainant requested an extension of time to submit the psychological report of reference to the Department for consideration in his subsequent international treaties obligation assessment. That request was denied because, based on an older psychological report provided by the complainant, it had already been accepted that his mental health had contributed to the inconsistencies in his claims and a new report would not have any bearing on his case. The State party submits that it considers that the new evidence is not substantially different to the information provided during the assessment. 4.29 As regards the author’s new claim regarding his detention and the personal risk of torture he would face if he returned to Sri Lanka, the State party submits that the complainant’s reliance on general country information does not establish a prima facie personal risk of torture for him. The State party reports that the Department has assessed the country information provided by the complainant and the most recent country information, and that there has been no relevant adverse change since his claims were last assessed to indicate that the State party’s non-refoulement obligations would be engaged in his case. 4.30 The State party considers that the author has not established the existence of additional grounds demonstrating that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. The complainant’s submissions relating to the human rights violations in Sri Lanka and the return of asylum seekers there have been carefully considered throughout the domestic processes. Relevant decision makers considered extensive country information and concluded that the complainant did not have a profile which might draw adverse attention. 4.31 The State party concludes that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to indicate that he would be personally at risk of torture that would amount to a violation of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 The complainant submits that he accepts that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection questions his credibility because of the incorrect information he gave in his early submissions and interviews. He explains that he denied being a member of LTTE because of his fear of how that membership would be perceived by the State party. 5.2 The complainant also submits that his allegations do not relate to the past assessments of his refugee status, but to the issue of whether, as he considers, he would be at risk of torture if he returned to Sri Lanka. 5.3 The author submits that the State party’s submission demonstrates that the competent authorities have implicitly accepted that he was a victim of torture in Sri 35 8 See international treaties obligation assessment (2015), pp. 21 and 27.