CAT/C/71/D/884/2018 the complainant had not provided an original document to the Department of Home Affairs for examination and, as such, the document’s genuineness could not be assessed. 6.6 As to the complainant’s arrest warrant, the State party reiterates that since there has been no explanation as to why the warrant was not provided when it was first issued, and because the High Commission of Sri Lanka did not advise the Australian Border Force of any arrest warrant when the latter sought a travel document for the complainant’s removal, the Departmental Officer found the complainant not to be a credible witness and was not satisfied that he had an outstanding warrant. Additional information from the complainant 7.1 On 5 March 2020, the complainant submitted additional information on the communication. He notes that on 24 February 2020, he discovered that the Federal Circuit Court had in September 2018 published his name on its website, the Commonwealth Courts Portal, in connection with the pseudonym “BBE15” under which it had published substantial details of his claims for protection. He submits that the State party was notified of this breach of his confidentiality in respect of his claims for protection on 25 February 2020 by email and by affidavit filed in that Court. He regrets that the State party has not brought this matter to the attention of the Committee. The complainant requests that the Committee take this information concerning the inadvertent publication of his claims in connection with his name, by the State party’s Government, into account in considering his complaint. 7.2 On 11 July 2020, the complainant submitted further information to the Committee. He notes that on 10 July 2020, the Federal Circuit Court found that the Court had no duty to remedy any errors in data disclosure either by the Court or by the Government and that any remedy was at the absolute discretion of the Minister. The complainant notes that the power of the Minister to decide whether to provide relief under section 48B of the Migration Act is completely discretionary, that his requests for such relief have already previously been refused on multiple occasions, and that there is no right of judicial review in respect of any such decision. On 22 December 2020, the appeals court of the Federal Court of Australia rejected the complainant’s appeal. 7.3 On 10 September 2020, the complainant requested interim measures in order to be released from the immigration detention facility while the Committee considered his complaint, because of his deteriorating mental health due to prolonged detention since 2018. The request was granted on 19 October 2020. 7.4 On 9 June 2021, the complainant submitted a new psychological report attesting to his mental health, including a risk of suicide or significant self-harm. He also submits that he has previously been involved with the Australian Tamil Congress, including in organizing activities for the remembrance of the Mullivaikal genocide, and that that organization has now been banned as a terrorist organization according to the Sri Lanka Government Gazette. The complainant submits publicly available information from Facebook about his Tamil diaspora separatist activities and associations in which he has been involved. 7.5 On 16 July 2021, the complainant submitted a new photograph of himself, which shows him with heavy weapons as a former member of the Tamil Tigers. He notes that the photo has not previously been provided to the State party’s Government owing to his fear of being indefinitely detained by the Australian Security Intelligence Organization as a former member of the Tamil Tigers. He also notes that he was previously unable to recover the photograph because the flash drive on which it was stored had been taken to Sri Lanka in his luggage by the State party’s Government, but that he was recently able to recover the photograph from his electronic records. According to the complainant, while before 2012 the authorities in Sri Lanka had not identified him as a former member of the Tamil Tigers, it is now certain that he will be identified, through examination of his possessions sent to Sri Lanka by the State party’s Government and given the publication of his claims together with his name on the Commonwealth Courts Portal. 9