WPCa< XteWYɯ\9qb,E[:DWibYXF+xcFPvk$%Uiz/f3k!T ~Eu.}0j' ZMwDzy̌%/$Ax+)Ĩ@K~| ]6lQbb CBL(ox(/e^O%Y$QtZ *`?)}5w!5"dsM )j|г]nB: е_kȭ^-ȪdV}N 7(J8N.6j4mKy\N^1̶PF7zB.Zy\i 0ƹWGT_ \EES:fs./—U$>vNҜ:#,UN %; 0 :A 0{ 0i 0T 0< 0! 0 0 0 0 0m 0I 0" 0 0 0 0h 02 0 0 0 0p 0E 0 0 0 0{ 0A 0 0 0 0 X 0<! 0J! 0" 0 " 0C#Ue>$iE$U6((fo, 0/6X0P3 4+7N<^ <w!<4%<9<H< mJ<HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  6K >4heading 1     UK XXX      US   XXX6N A4heading 2     UK XXX      US   XXX6@ 34heading 3   UK XXX    US   XXX6@ 34heading 5   UK XXX    US   XXX<:Default Para0GG.footer   ! UK XXX US    !XXX<00:endnote text   UK XXX US   XXX<rr:endnote refe XXXS)\  `&Times New RomanS S)\  `&Times New RomanSXXX($    \  `&Times New Roman _ !UKUS.,  )X XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @  @  @  @  @ & @ UKUK.,)X XX)X    @ &  USUK.,' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   UK.,US.,K  i  '])X XX)X )X XX)X   )X)X #)-#+4Ԁ#+Xp; X+4Y##X X X+Xp;#)X XXX Khanv.Canada,communicationNo.15/1994,(CAT/C/13/D/15/1994); " Mutombov.Switzerland,communicationNo.13/1993(CAT/C/12/D/13/1993).&,݌ # ЌUK.,UK., @ )X XX)X    @ USUK.,<6X9`(Courier New  !UKUS.,  _)X XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @  @  @ & @ UKUK.,)X XX)X    @ &  USUK.,' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   UK.,US.,E  ii  'W)X XX)X )X XX)X   ݀See_Vilvarajah_ԀandOthersv.UnitedKingdom,14_E.H.R.R._Ԁ218(30October1991).&&݌ %  ЌUK.,UK., @ )X XX)X    @ USUK., \ !UKUS.,  _)X XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @  @  @ & @ UKUK.,)X XX)X    @ &  USUK.,' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   UK.,US.,E  iii  'W)X XX)X )X XX)X   ݀See_Bahaddar_Ԁv.TheNetherlands,No.145/1996/764/965(19February1998).&&݌ `'" ЌUK.,UK., @ )X XX)X    @ USUK.,(B2$ !UKUS.,    0   , !UKUS.,  _)X XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @  @  @ & @ UKUK.,)X XX)X    @ &  USUK.,' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   UK.,US.,E  iv  'W)X XX)X )X XX)X   ݀Xv.Sweden,communicationNo.64/1997(19November1997).&&݌ @)$ ЌUK.,UK., @ )X XX)X    @ USUK., F !UKUS.,  _)X XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @   v  Views,communicationNo.34/1995,CAT/C/18/D/34/1995,9May1997.  +p&  @ USUK.,  !UKUS.,  _)X XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @  @  @ & @ UKUK.,)X XX)X    @ &  USUK.,' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   UK.,US.,E  vi  'W)X XX)X )X XX)X   ݀Supra,note3.&&݌ -P( ЌUK.,UK., @ )X XX)X    @ USUK., ! .0*   !UKUS.,  _)X XXX<( 4 <DLX< @  @  @  @  @  @ & @ UKUK.,)X XX)X    @ &  USUK.,' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   UK.,US.,t  vii  ')X XX)X )X XX)X   ݀_Saini_Ԁv.Canada(MinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration)[1998]3_F.C._Ԁ315(_T.D._);  _Farhadi_ԁv.Canada(MinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration)[1998]4_F.C._Ԁ325(_T.D._).USUK.,(, tQ+:i+003|x U !UKUS.,  _  )X XXX COMMITTEEAGAINSTTORTURE  Z.Z.v.Canada  CommunicationNo.123/1998 p 15May2001 P  __VIEWS   p  Submittedby:_Z.Z._Ԁ(namewithheld) @     ` [representedbycounsel] 0  Allegedvictim:Theauthor  Stateparty:Canada  Dateofcommunication:11November1998    ?+ *4 <DLX?  TheCommitteeagainstTorture,establishedunderArticle17oftheConventionagainst P TortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment, @ B( 4 <DL*4XB  Meetingon15May2001,  p   р    HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.123/1998,submittedtothe P CommitteeagainstTortureunderarticle22oftheConventionagainstTortureandOtherCruel, @ InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment, 0       Havingtakenintoaccountallinformationmadeavailabletoitbytheauthorofthe ! communication,hiscounselandtheStateparty, "      T@* 6 n !%,(*,4/XT  AdoptsitsViewsunderarticle22,paragraph7,oftheConvention. $" oCL 6 n !%,(*,4/ * N!%XoQ( 4 <DL N!%XQ1.1  Theauthorofthecommunication,dated11November1998,isMr.Z.Z.,acitizenof p&!$ Afghanistan,bornon8July1948.HewasdeportedtoAfghanistanon27November1998, `'"% followingaconvictionfordrugoffencesinCanada.HeclaimsthathisdeportationtoAfghanistan P(#& constitutesaviolationbyCanadaoftheConvention.Heisrepresentedbycounsel. @)$' USUK.,%  ! !X!UKUS.,)X XX)X   %   % Y ݌̌US.,UK.,  ! X!!)X XX)X   UK.,US., <( 4 <DLX<1.2  Inaccordancewitharticle22,paragraph3,oftheConvention,theCommitteetransmittedthe  +p&) communicationtotheStatepartyon11December1998andrequestedthelattertoprovide ,`'*  observationsontheadmissibilityandmeritsofthecommunication. -P(+ USUK.,&        UKUS.,)X XX)X             L   ( Ԍ̌  US.,UK.,  )X XX)X          UKUS.,)X XX)X           Thefactsaspresentedbytheauthor'     [Ԍ  Ќ  US.,UK.,  )X XX)X     UK.,US., 2.1  TheauthorallegedlyfledAfghanistanin1977atthetimeofthearmedinterventionofthe  SovietUnionintheAfghanconflict.HisbrotherwaskilledbySovietforcesandhefearedthesame p fate.HewenttoIranwhereheremainedfortwoyearswithoutlegalstatus.Hethentravelledto `  Pakistanwherehealsoremainedtwoyearswithoutalegalstatus.FromPakistan,theauthordecided P  toenterIndiawhereherequestedtoberecognizedasarefugeebyUNHCR.Hewasallegedly @  recognizedasaConventionrefugeebutdidnotkeepanyevidenceofit.However,havingnowork 0  permitandnorighttoeducation,theauthordecidedtojoinhisbrotherwhohadbeenrecognizedas  p  arefugeeinCanada. `    2.2  TheauthorarrivedinCanadain1987onafalsepassport.UponhisarrivalinMontreal,he @  appliedforasylum.Hewasfoundtohaveacrediblebasisforhisrefugeeclaim,whichentitledhim 0  toapplyforpermanentresidence,andhebecameapermanentresidentin1992.   2.3  On29June1995,theauthor,foundguiltyofimportingnarcotics,wassentencedto10years  imprisonment.On10April1996,theMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigrationdeclaredhima   dangertothepublicinCanadaanddecidedthatheshouldthereforeberemovedtohiscountryof  origin.TheMinisterarguedthattheseriouscriminaloffenceofwhichhehadbeenconvictedand  theneedtoprotectCanadiansocietyoutweighedanyhumanitarianandcompassionate p considerations.TheauthorappliedforreviewofthisdecisionbeforetheFederalCourtbuthis ` applicationwasdenied. P 2.4  On4November1998,theauthorattendedadetentionreviewhearingduringwhichhewas 0 toldthathisdetentionwouldcontinueandthathisremovalwouldtakeplaceon14November1998.  p Thesameday,counselfortheauthorfaxedarequesttotheRemovalOfficertodeferthedeportation ` untilaproperriskassessmenthadbeenmade,referringtorecentdocumentationaboutthesituation P inAfghanistan. @ 2.5  Therequestbeingdenied,theauthorsoughtastayoftheexpulsionorderintheFederalCourt   TrialDivision,arguingthatbecauseofhisethnicbackground,hewouldbesubjectedtotortureif ! removedtoAfghanistan.On12November1998,theCourtrefusedthestay.Finally,on13 "  November1998,theauthorappliedforaninteriminjunctionbeforetheOntarioCourtofJusticeto #! staytheexecutionofthedeportationorder.Theapplicationwasdismissedbecausethematterhad $" alreadybeendecidedbytheFederalCourt. % # 2.6  InhissubmissiontotheCommitteedated11November1998,theauthorargued,inrelation `'"% totheissueofexhaustionofinternalremedies,thatassoonastheCourtrendereditsdecisiononthe P(#& applicationforthestayofremoval,therewouldbenootherinternalremedyleft. @)$' 2.7  TheauthorallegesthattheStatepartydidnotmakeaproperriskassessmentatthetimeof  +p&) thedecisioninApril1996noranysubsequentreviewoftheriskassessment,despitetheexistence ,`'* ofmajorpoliticalandhumanrightsproblemsinthecountrytowhichtheauthorwastobedeported. -P(+ TheTalibanhadbecomeamajoractorintheAfghanpoliticalsituationandconditionsinthecountry -@), hadchangeddramaticallyasaconsequence.  2.8  TheauthorisaSunniMuslimandamemberoftheTajikethnicgroup.Thebiggerpartof  AfghanistanisatpresentcontrolledbytheTalibanwho,althoughSunnis,areofadifferentethnic  group,thePashtun. p 2.9  TheauthorstatesthatAfghanistancontinuestoexperiencecivilwarandpoliticalinstability P  andthatethnicdivisionsareincreasinglyinfluencingthefighting.TheTaliban,whoemergedasa @  militaryandpoliticalforcein1994,areanultra-conservativeIslamicmovement.InJanuary1997, 0  theywerecontrollingtwothirdsofAfghanistanincludingKabul,thecapital.  p  2.10  Inadditiontothegeneralsituationofinsecuritycausedbytheinternalarmedconflict P  betweentheTalibanandotherfactions,thehumanrightssituationintheterritorycontrolledbythe @  Talibanisofseriousconcern.Accordingtotheauthor,thereisdiscriminationbetweenthedifferent 0  ethnicgroups.TheTalibanhavedetainedhundredsofpeoplesolelybecauseoftheirethnicorigin.   AmongtheseminoritygroupsaretheUzbeks,Tajiks,Hazaras,ShiiteMuslimsandTurkmen.The  authorsubmitsthatasignificantnumberofTajikshavebeendetainedandsomeofthemhave  disappeared.  2.11  TheauthoralsoreferstoAmnestyInternationalreportsstatingthatTalibanguardshave  beatenandkickedpeopleincustodyandthatlongtermprisonershavebeenseverelytortured.Itis p alsosubmittedthataccordingtoaHumanRightsWatchreportononeoftheworstmassacresof ` civilianscommittedbytheTaliban,inAugust1998whentheytookMazarelSharif,theauthors P cityoforigin,inthedaysaftertheincidenttheTalibansearchedandarrestedallmalesofHazara, @ UzbekandTajikorigininthecity.Moreover,sincethecityjailwasovercrowded,thousandsofthe 0 detaineesweretransferredtoothercitiesinlargecontainertrucksholding100-150persons.Intwo  p knowninstances,nearlyallthemeninthecontainerwereasphyxiatedordiedofheatstroke. `   USUK.,&  "  UKUS.,)X XX)X     "S)  _ "S)) У)Ԍ̌US.,UK.,  )X XX)X   _"  UKUS.,)X XX)X     "v*  Thecomplaint'G)"v** Ap*Ԍ @ Ќ US.,UK.,  )X XX)X   UK.,US.,5)3.1  Atthetimeofthesubmissionofhiscommunication,theauthorallegedthathewouldbeat   seriousriskoftortureifhewereremovedtoAfghanistan,andthatthedecisiontoforciblyremove ! himtoAfghanistanwouldentailaviolationofarticle3oftheConvention.Itisalsosubmittedthat "  nocompetentofficialoftheStatepartyhasproperlyassessedwhethertherewasariskoftorture. #! Asaresult,therehasbeenbothasubstantiveandaproceduralviolationoftheConvention. $"     3.2  Theauthorrecallsthatthespecificprohibitiononremovingpersonstowheretheymaybe p&!$ atriskoftortureisexplicitlyenshrinedinarticle3oftheConventionagainstTorture.Indetermining `'"% whetherarticle3shouldapply,theCommitteeshouldbaseitselfonwhetherthereisaconsistent P(#& patternofgross,flagrantormassviolationsofhumanrightsinthecountryconcernedandwhether @)$' theauthorrunsapersonalrisk,whichmayemanatefromhis/herclassorcharacter.' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   _'x0ghan )X XX)X )X XX)X   ril1996nor * (  i       0*%(     USUK.,&  "  UKUS.,)X XX)X     "h2  Statepartysobservationsontheadmissibilityandmerits"h22 Ap2Ԍ ,`'*  US.,UK.,  )X XX)X   UK.,US.,J2',\2 -P(+ 4.1  Inasubmissiondated14December1999,theStatepartytransmittedtotheCommitteeits   observationsonboththeadmissibilityandmeritsofthecase.      USUK.,&  #  UKUS.,)X XX)X     #5  Ontheadmissibility#55 Aph5Ԍ  ЌUS.,UK.,  )X XX)X   UK.,US.,4' 54.2  TheStatepartysubmitsthatthecommunicationwasinadmissibleastheauthorhadnot `  exhaustedtheinternalremediesasrequiredbyarticle22(5)(b)oftheConventionandrule91ofthe P  Committeesrulesofprocedure.Itunderlinesthatitisafundamentalprincipleofinternationallaw @  thatlocalremediesmustbeexhaustedbeforearemedyissoughtfromaninternationalbody.This 0  principlegivestheStateanopportunitytocorrectinternallyanywrongthatmayhavebeen  p  committedbeforetheStatesinternationalresponsibilityisengaged. `  4.3  UndertheImmigrationAct,judicialreviewofdecisionsareavailablebeforetheFederal @  CourtTrialDivision,anditissubmittedthatanapplicantdoesonlyneeda fairlyarguablecaseor 0   aseriousquestiontobedeterminedforleavetobegranted.       4.4  TheStatepartyarguesthattheCommittee,aswellasotherinternationaltribunals,consider  judicialreviewasanavailableandeffectiveremedy.InthecaseM.A.v.Canada  (CAT/C/14/D/22/1995),theauthorwasgrantedrefugeestatusbutlaterdeclaredathreattoCanadian  securitysothathehadtoberemovedfromCanada.Thecommunicationwasdeclaredinadmissible  becausetheauthorwasintheprocessofchallengingtheremovaldecisionbywayofjudicialreview. p TheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightshasasimilarjurisprudence' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   ''=ghan )X XX)X )X XX)X    , (  ii      andconsidersthatjudicialreview ` providesasufficientlyeffectiveremedyinasylumcases. P   4.5  Inthepresentcase,theauthorsapplicationtotheFederalCourtTrialDivisionforleavefor 0 judicialreviewoftheMinistersopinionthattheauthorconstitutedadangertothepublicwasdenied  p on8September1997.On5November1998,theauthorappliedtotheFederalCourtTrialDivision ` againstthedecisionoftheRemovalOfficernottodeferdeportation.Hesubsequentlysubmittedthe P presentcommunicationtotheCommitteeon11November1998beforetheFederalCourtcould @ examinehisapplication. 0   4.6  Moreover,theauthorfailedtoperfecttheapplicationforjudicialreviewbyfilingan ! ApplicationRecordwithintheprescribedperiod.Inthisregard,theStatepartyagainreferstothe "  jurisprudenceoftheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsaccordingtowhichcomplainantshaveto #! respectandfollowdomesticproceduresalsowithrespecttotimelimitsbeforebringingan $" internationalclaim.' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   'gCvemb )X XX)X )X XX)X    - (  iii       % #   4.7  TheStatepartyarguesthattheFederalCourtcouldhaveexaminedthecaseiftheapplication `'"% of5November1998hadbeenperfectedandleavehadbeengranted,whichcouldhaveledtoa P(#& reconsiderationofthecase. @)$'   4.8  TheauthoralsobroughtanactionintheFederalCourtTrialDivisionchallengingthe  +p&) constitutionalityoftheprovisiondenyinghimtheopportunitytoclaimrefugeeprotection.Healso ,`'* arguedthattheImmigrationActandtheimmigrationprocessarecontrarytotheCanadianCharter -P(+ ofRightsandFreedombecauseneitherrequiresariskassessment.Theauthor,however,didnot -@), continuethisaction,whichwas,atthetimeofthesubmission,stillpending.Hecouldindeedhave  instructedhislawyertoproceedonhisbehalf.TheStatepartyarguesinthisconnectionthatthe  authorsdeportationdoesnotrenderhisrightsorpendingactionsineffectiveormoot.  USUK.,%  ! !X!UKUS.,)X XX)X   %0I  %0II݌̌US.,UK.,  ! X!!)X XX)X   UK.,US.,I<( 4 <DLX<4.9  TheStatepartyalsosubmitsthattheauthorcouldhavesoughtahumanitarianand p compassionateassessmentofhiscase.ItreferstoXv.SwedenwheretheCommitteefoundthat `  suchanapplicationwasaneffectiveremedysincetheAppealsBoardinthatcasehadthe P  competencetogranttheauthorsaresidencepermit.' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   '3Lvemb )X XX)X )X XX)X    / (  iv      Thisoptionwasavailabletotheauthorprior @  tothedeportationandtherewasnotimelimitforsubmittingit. 0    4.10  TheStatepartydeemsthattheabovementionedremediesareeffectiveinthesenseofarticle `  22(5)oftheConvention.Theauthorshouldthereforehavepursuedthempriortopetitioningthe P  Committeeandhasfailedtoexerciseduediligenceinnotdoingso. @    USUK.,&  #  UKUS.,)X XX)X     #~O  Onthemerits#~OO ApOԌ 0  ЌUS.,UK.,  )X XX)X   UK.,US.,`O'rO4.11  Asfortheriskfacedbytheauthor,theStatepartyreferstotheprinciple,laiddownbythe  CommitteeinthecaseSeidMortesaAemeiv.Switzerland,  0 (  v       thatithastodetermine whetherthere  aresubstantialgroundsforbelievingthat[theauthor]wouldbeindangerofbeingsubjectedto  torture[inthecountrytowhichheisbeingreturned]and whetherhewouldbepersonallyatrisk.  TheStatepartyalsorecallsthattheburdenofproofisontheauthortoestablishthatthereare  substantialgroundstobelievethatheorshewouldbepersonallyatriskofbeingsubjectedtotorture. p   4.12  TheStatepartysubmitsthatsincetheprotectionprovidedbyarticle3is,accordingtothe P Committeesjurisprudence,absolute,irrespectiveoftheauthorspastconduct,thedeterminationof @ riskmustbeparticularlyrigorous.Tothatpurpose,itreferstoadecisionoftheEuropeanCourtof 0 HumanRightswhereitisstatedwithregardtoarticle3oftheEuropeanConventiononHuman  p Rightsthat theCourtsexaminationoftheexistenceofariskofilltreatmentinbreachofArticle ` 3attherelevanttimemustnecessarilybearigorousoneinviewoftheabsolutecharacterofthis P provision.' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   'Wvemb )X XX)X )X XX)X    1 (  vi       @     4.13  Inordertoassesstheriskoftorturefacedbytheauthor,theStatepartycontendsthatthe   followingfactorsarepertinent:(a)whethertheStateconcernedisoneinwhichthereisevidence ! ofaconsistentpatternofgross,flagrantormassviolationofhumanrights;(b)whethertheauthor "  hasbeentorturedormaltreatedbyorwiththeacquiescenceofapublicofficialinthepast;(c) #! whetherthesituationreferredtoin(a)haschanged;and(d)whethertheauthorhasengagedin $" politicalorotheractivitywithinoroutsidetheStateconcernedwhichwouldappeartomakehim % # particularlyvulnerabletotheriskofbeingtortured. p&!$   4.14  Contrarytotheauthorsallegations,theStatepartyemphasizesthattherisksfacedbythe P(#& authoruponhisreturntoAfghanistanwereassessedbytheMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigration @)$' inApril1996whenconsideringwhethertheauthorwasadangertothepublic.Thejurisprudence 0*%( citedbytheauthortosupporthisargument' )X Xh)X )X Xh)X   '8]vemb )X XX)X )X XX)X    2 (  vii      hasnotalwaysbeenfollowedandisnowunderappeal  +p&) beforetheFederalCourtofAppeal.Moreover,theStatepartysubmitsthatitisnotforthe ,`'* Committeetoquestionitsinternalproceduresonriskassessment.Finally,suchariskassessment -P(+ wasalsoevaluatedbytheFederalCourtTrialDivisionontherequesttostaythedeportation. -@),     4.15  TheStatepartyconsidersthattheauthorhasnotdemonstrated,onaprimafaciebasis,that  heispersonallyatriskoftorturebecauseofhisethnicorigin.Althoughitisnotdeniedthatthere  areviolationsofhumanrightsperpetratedbytheTaliban,thereisnoindicationthattheTajiksare  specificallytargeted.TheStatepartyreferstoinformationfromtheResearchDirectorateofthe p CanadianImmigrationandRefugeeBoardstatingthatpersecutionisratheraimedattheShiaHazar `  peopleandtheTurkishspeakingsupportersofGeneralDostam.Thesamesourceofinformation P  underlinesthat, generally,peoplewhoaresuspectedofsupporting8theNorthernAlliancewould @  beundertightsurveillancefromtheTalibansecurityforces.Ethnicaffiliationisnotaprimary 0  reasonforbeingtargetedbytheTaliban8;however,TajikslivingundertheTalibanrulesare  p  carefulandventureinthestreetsofKabulwithcaution.Moreover,thereportindicatesthatTajiks `  canfreelyandsafelyliveinthenorthofAfghanistanwhiletheoneslivingontheterritorycontrolled P  bytheTalibanarenotsystematicallytargetedforsurveillance.Thereisalsonoevidencethattorture @  isroutinelypractisedbytheTalibanagainsttheTajiks,theauthorhimselfacknowledgesinhis 0  communicationthat torturedoesnotappeartobearoutinepracticeinallcases.       4.16  TheStatepartyfurtherarguesthattheauthordidnotbringanyevidencethathewouldbe  personallyatriskoftortureinAfghanistan.Thereisnoevidencethattheauthorwaseverarrested  andthereasonsforwhichhelefthiscountryin1977nolongerexist.Neitherhastheauthorstated  thatpersonsinhisentouragewerepersecutedortorturedbecausetheywereTajiks,norhasthe  authorbeenengagedinapoliticalactivitythatcoulddrawtheTalibansattention.Thefactsalleged p thereforedonotrevealaprimafaciecasethathisexpulsionwouldexposehimtotheriskoftorture. `   4.17  TheStatepartysubmitsthatthepresentcommunicationisbasedonexactlythesamefacts @ asthosepresentedtotheMinisterofCitizenshipandImmigrationwhenhemadehis danger 0 opinionandthosepresentedonjudicialreviewbeforetheFederalCourtTrialDivision.Asa  p consequence,sincethenationalproceedingsdidnotdiscloseanymanifesterrororunreasonableness ` andwerenottaintedbyabuseofprocess,badfaith,manifestbiasorseriousirregularities,the P Committeeshouldnotsubstituteitsownfindingsonwhethertheauthorrisksbeingsubjectedto @ tortureinAfghanistan;itshouldnotbecomea fourthinstancethatwouldre-examinethefindings 0 offactsbytheinternalauthorities.   4.18  Asaconsequence,theStatepartyisoftheviewthat,onthebasisofthecriteriareferredto "  inparagraph4.13above,thereisnoindication:(a)thattheauthorwastorturedormaltreatedbyor #! withtheacquiescenceofapublicofficialinAfghanistaninthepast;(b)thatheiscurrentlybeing $" soughtbyAfghanauthorities;(c)thatpersonsinhisimmediatecirclewerearrestedortortured % # becausetheyareTajiks;(d)thatethnicTajiksarespecificallytargetedformistreatment;and(e)that p&!$ hehasbeeninvolvedinanyhighprofileactivitythatcoulddrawtheattentionoftheTaliban. `'"% 4.19  TheStatepartythereforerequeststhat,ifthecommunicationisdeclaredadmissible,itis @)$' declaredwithoutmerits. 0*%(   USUK.,&  "  UKUS.,)X XX)X     "p  Counselcomments"pbq USJqԌ ,`'*  US.,UK.,  )X XX)X   UK.,US.,p',p -P(+ USUK.,&    #  UKUS.,)X XX)X     #r  Ontheadmissibility#rs USrԌ  ЌUS.,UK.,  )X XX)X   UK.,US.,mr'r5.1  Inasubmissionof21January2000,counselfortheauthormadehercommentsonthe  observationsoftheStateparty.Inconnectionwiththeexhaustionofinternalremedies,counsel  recallsthattheauthorwasgrantedpermanentresidencein1992andthathewaslaterconvictedof p acriminaloffenceleadingtothedeportationorderissuedagainsthim.UndertheImmigrationAct, `  apersoncanbedeportedfromCanadaanddeniedaccesstotherefugeeprocedureiftheMinister P  certifiesthepersonasa dangertothepublicinCanada.Inthiscase,theonlyissueiswhetheror @  notthepersonisadangertothepublicinCanada,notwhetherthepersonisatrisk.Asaresult, 0  whensuchadecisionistaken,thepersonnolongerhasarighttoappealtotheAppealDivisionand  p  isalsodeniedarighttomakearefugeeclaim. `      5.2  Counselreiteratesthattheprocedureforcertifyingthatapersonisadangertothepublicin @  Canadaisnotanadequateassessmentofrisk.SheconsidersthatthepositionoftheStatepartyhas 0  consistentlybeenthat,incertaincircumstances,personswhoconstituteadangertothepubliccan   bedeportedtotheircountriesoforiginevenwhenthereisariskoftorture.Thiswasalsothe  substanceoftherulingoftheCourtofAppealsinthecaseSureshv.M.C.I.(MinisterofCitizenship  andImmigration).TheinterpretationoftheFederalCourtofAppealisthattheConventiondoesnot  prohibitinallcasesdeportationtocountrieswherethereisasignificantriskoftorture.Itistherefore  counselscontentionthattheofficialpositionoftheStateparty,assubstantiatedbythesecond  highestcourtinCanada,isthatpersonscanbedeportedtocountrieswheretherewouldbea p substantialriskoftortureifthereisacompellingStateinterest.CounselsubmitsthattheCommittee ` mustacturgentlytomakeitsviewcleartotheStatepartythatremovaltocountrieswherethereis P ariskoftortureisnotpermittedunderanycircumstances. @   5.3  Counselarguesthat,asaresultofthedeportationandthefactthatsheisunabletoreceive  p instructionsfromtheauthor,theobligationtochallengethedecisiontoexecutedeportationby ` internalremedieshasbecomemoot.Thesamemaybesaidforthequestioningofthe P constitutionalityoftheprovisiondenyingtheauthortheopportunitytoclaimrefugeeprotection.As @ aconsequence,oncetheauthorwasunabletoobtainastayofthedeportationandwasindeed 0 deported,alldomesticremedieshadbeenexhaustedbecausethedeportationorderwasexecuted.   Toperfectapplicationschallengingadecisiontoexecuteadecisionofremovalunderthese ! circumstanceswould,accordingtocounsel,bemeaningless. "    USUK.,&  #  UKUS.,)X XX)X     #j  Onthemerits#jҁ ksԌ $" ЌUS.,UK.,  )X XX)X   '$^5.4  Withrespecttothemerits,itisthecounselsopinionthatnopersonhasadequatelyand p&!$ properlyassessedtheriskrunbytheauthor.Toallowanyassessmentofrisktobemadewithinthe `'"% contextofadeterminationastowhetherapersonisadangertothepublictopermithisdeportation P(#& is,accordingtocounsel,unsatisfactory.Theriskassessmenthastobeconductedindependentlyof @)$' anyevaluationofdanger.CounselsubmitsthattheCommitteeshouldknowwhetherornottheState 0*%( partyconcludedthattheauthorwasatrisk.Thisisparticularlyimportantinlightofthepositionof  +p&) theStatepartythatdeportationtocountrieswhereapersonriskstortureispossibleundercertain ,`'* circumstances. -P(+    -@), 5.5  Moreover,counselisoftheopinionthattheassessmentofriskmadebytheStatepartyafter  theremovaloftheauthorisnotsatisfactory.Theassessmentshouldhavetakenplacepriortothe  removal.  5.6  Asforthecurrentsituationoftheauthor,counselacknowledgesthatshehasbeenunableto p communicatewithhim.Counselargues,however,thattheStatepartyhasnotmadeanyeffortto `  verifytheauthorscurrentsituationanddeterminewhetherheissafeandatriskofbeingsubjected P  totorture. @  "  UKUS.,)X XX)X     "  AdditionalcommentsbyStateparty"Q ks9Ԍ  p  Ќ US.,UK.,  )X XX)X   "  UKUS.,)X XX)X     ""  "" ,rԌ̌US.,UK.,  )X XX)X     UK.,US.,L6.1  Inasubmissionof10May2000,theStatepartyarguedwithregardtotheadmissibilityof P  thecasethatapositivedeterminationontheapplicationonhumanitarianandcompassionategrounds @  couldhaveenabledtheauthortoremaininCanada.Furthermore,theStatepartyreiteratesits 0  argumentsthattheremovaloftheauthordidnotrenderhisrightsorpendingactionsineffectiveor   moot.  6.2  Withregardtothemeritsofthecase,theStatepartysubmitsthat,initsconsiderationasto  whethertheauthorconstitutedadangertothepublicinCanada,theMinisterdidassesstheriskfaced  bytheauthorincaseofreturntoAfghanistan.SuchassessmentwasalsodonebytheFederalCourt  TrialDivisioninits12November1998decision. p 6.3  TheStatepartyfinallyreiteratesitsconcernthattheCommitteeshouldnotbecomeafourth P instancebyreevaluatingfindingsofdomesticcourtsunlesstherewasamanifesterrororifthe @ decisionwastaintedbyabuseofpower,badfaith,manifestbiasorseriousirregularities. 0 USUK., Additionalcommentsbycounselonbehalfoftheauthor  ` UK.,US.,s7.1  Inasubmissionof7June2000,counselunderlinedthattheapplicationonhumanitarianand @ compassionategroundsisnotaneffectiveremedybecauseitdoesnotstaytheremoval;inanyevent 0 itwasuselesstopursueanapplicationchallengingadecisionofremovalafterthedeportationhad   beenexecuted. !   7.2  Counselalsorepeatedthatthe dangeropinionisnotariskassessmentandthatthedecision #! oftheFederalCourtwasbasedonmisconstructionsofevidence,andthejudgehadnoexpertisein $" assessingrisk. % #   USUK.,!    UKUS.,)X X)X       !Г  !ГS ,/Ԍ̌  US.,UK.,  )X XX)X   UK.,US.,USUK., IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee  `'"% UK.,US.,$8.1  Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theCommitteemustdecide @)$' whetherornotitisadmissibleunderarticle22oftheConvention.TheCommitteehasascertained, 0*%( asitisrequiredtodounderarticle22,paragraph5(a),oftheConvention,thatthesamematterhas  +p&) notbeenandisnotbeingexaminedunderanotherprocedureofinternationalinvestigationor ,`'* settlement. -P(+    -@), 8.2  Withregardtotheexhaustionofdomesticremedies,theCommitteehastakennoteofthe  observationsbytheStatepartyandbytheauthorscounsel.Pursuanttoarticle22,paragraph5(b),  oftheConvention,theCommitteeisprecludedfromconsideringanycommunicationunlessithas  beenascertainedthatallavailabledomesticremedieshavebeenexhausted.Thisruledoesnot,  however,applyifitisestablishedthattheapplicationofdomesticremedieshasbeenorwouldbe p unreasonablyprolongedorwouldbeunlikelytobringeffectiverelieftothepresumedvictim.Inthis `  connection,theCommitteenotesthattheauthorwasremovedtoAfghanistanon27November1998. P  TheCommitteethereforedeclaresthecommunicationadmissible.  @    8.3  TheCommitteenotesthatboththeStatepartyandtheauthorscounselhaveprovided  p  observationsonthemeritsofthecommunication.Itthereforedecidestoconsiderthemeritsatthe `  presentstage. P    8.4  TheCommitteeisoftheopinionthattheauthordidnotbringanyevidencethathewouldbe 0  personallyatriskofbeingsubjectedtotortureifhewerereturnedtoAfghanistan.TheCommittee   alsonotedthattheauthorhasnotsuggestedthathehadbeensubjectedtotortureinthepast.Nor  hasheallegedthathehasbeeninvolvedinanypoliticalorreligiousactivitiessuchthathisreturn  coulddrawtheattentionoftheTalibantotheextentofputtinghimatpersonalriskoftorture.  8.5  TheauthoronlybroughtinformationonthegeneralsituationinAfghanistanandclaimed  that,asamemberoftheTajikethnicgroup,hewouldfacetortureuponreturntoAfghanistan. p AlthoughitrecognizesthedifficultiesencounteredbysomeethnicgroupsinAfghanistan,the ` CommitteeconsidersthatthemereclaimofbeingamemberoftheTajikethnicgroupdoesnot P sufficientlysubstantiatetheriskthattheauthorwouldbesubjectedtotortureuponreturn. @ 9.  Asaconsequence,theCommitteeagainstTorture,actingunderarticle22,paragraph7,of  p theConventionagainstTortureandOtherCruel,InhumanorDegradingTreatmentorPunishment, ` isoftheviewthatthefactsaspresentedbytheauthorandasfoundbytheCommitteedonotreveal P abreachofarticle3oftheConvention. @   Notes#X XX)X I#