CAT/C/46/D/395/2009 4.7 Recalling the Committee’s jurisprudence, as well as its general comment No. 1, the State party stresses, further, that it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under article 22 of the Convention. The State party maintains that in this case, these conditions have not been met. 4.8 The State party also submits that the complainant has failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available and that he has not diligently pursued the availed remedies. The complainant was given several opportunities and several months in which to submit his allegations to the Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism of Canada as part of the latter’s investigation of the danger the complainant posed to the Canadian public and the risks to which he might be exposed in Lebanon. However, the complainant submitted no written comment in the context of that investigation. The complainant did not, moreover, pursue his application for leave and judicial review with due diligence, omitting to submit to the Federal Court the case file in support of his application. The State party stresses that pursuant to the Committee’s own jurisprudence, mere negligence on the part of counsel cannot constitute justification for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.6 4.9 Besides its comments on admissibility, and on the same grounds, the State party maintains that the complainant’s communication should be dismissed on the merits, claiming that it fails to constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments 5.1 In counsel’s reply, dated 23 December 2009, to the State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, counsel maintains that the complainant continues to this day to run a risk if deported. Despite the official withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon, Hizbullah’s importance and influence has continued to grow, especially since the end of the recent conflict with Israel in 2006. The risk to the complainant has thus not diminished, since it was his refusal to become involved with the militias, Hizbullah included, which was the cause of his injuries in 1989. Despite the participation of sections of Hizbullah in the Government of Lebanon, the acts committed by this militia against individuals who oppose it are no less violent or arbitrary today. Counsel refers to several cases of unlawful detention by Hizbullah forces reported in the United States Department of State report for 2008. Counsel cites three cases respectively involving a member of the French Socialist Party, some Brazilian journalists and five employees belonging to a company carrying out a study in Beirut’s southern neighbourhoods. 5.2 Counsel adds that Hizbullah’s current participation in the Lebanese Government means that the State party cannot exclude the possibility that the complainant, if detained in Lebanon, may be subjected to practices prohibited under article 1 of the Convention, since such practices may be perpetrated by State officials belonging to Hizbullah or inflicted at their instigation. 5.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, counsel notes that the complainant acted with due diligence, and that it was his lawyer who omitted to submit the applicant’s case file to the Federal Court in the context of his application for leave and judicial review. 5.4 On 29 January 2010, counsel sent the Committee a copy of her application for criminal assessment of the complainant for the purposes of determining the danger he posed to the public. This assessment finds a reduced risk of reoffending owing to encouraging factors connected with the complainant’s family context and his lack of previous criminal 6 6 Communication No. 307/2006, E.Y. v. Canada, para. 9.4. GE.11-43850