The complaint 3.1The complainant believes that human rights are not respected in Honduras and that impunity for the perpetrators of abuses is the rule. He claims that persons possessing information concerning illegal acts committed by the military are particularly threatened, as in his own case. He therefore considers that he may face torture, extrajudicial execution or enforced disappearance if returned to Honduras. 3.2In support of his allegations of the risk of a violation of article 3 of the Convention, the complainant submits, inter alia, a detailed psychological report referring to the existence of “chronic post-traumatic stress” and also stating that “he fears for his physical integrity and his anxiety level is very high. … His anxiety level is so high and the tension so great that he cannot constructively use his inner resources to solve day-to-day problems”. The complainant also indicates that the Canadian authorities did not attach any importance to this psychological report, stating only that it had been submitted late. The complainant explains that this was due to a number of reasons, primarily financial and psychological. 3.3The complainant also submitted a copy of the decision by San Pedro Sula Criminal Court No. 3 of 13 January 1989, which found him innocent of involvement in the 19 April 1988 attack. The Court acquitted the complainant on the basis, inter alia, of the statements made by a number of witnesses who corroborated the complainant’s claims.b 3.4The complainant indicates that he has some information about the members of the military who tortured him, particularly a certain Major Sánchez Muñoz, and maintains that it is a well-known fact that the military goes to great lengths to remove any traces of its crimes, especially by making the victims disappear. 3.5In response to the Canadian authorities’ argument that he lived without any problem in Honduras for a few years following his detention, the complainant also states that he cannot be blamed for having tried to stay in his country. 3.6With regard to the situation in Honduras, the complainant stresses that, although a democratic regime now exists, the military is still a “sub-State”. As proof of this affirmation, the complainant refers to various reports by Amnesty International and FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights Leagues). In its 1997 report, Amnesty International indicates that at least five former members of the National Investigation Department were killed in circumstances suggesting extrajudicial execution; one of them was supposed to testify about a murder reportedly committed by members of the Department in 1994. The complainant also indicates that Honduras is one of the only countries to have been censured many times by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and refers, in particular, to the Velásquez Rodríguez case, which involved the disappearance of a student and in connection with which the impunity enjoyed by some members of the military in Honduras was sharply criticized. State party’s observations on the admissibility of the complaint 4.1The State party transmitted its observations on the admissibility of the complaint by a note verbale dated 15 September 2000. 4.2The State party maintains that the complainant did not exhaust all domestic remedies before submitting his complaint to the Committee. More specifically, he did not request leave to apply to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the decision not to grant him humanitarian status. 4.3The State party recalls in this connection that all decisions taken by the Canadian authorities concerning immigration are subject to judicial review. The complainant has, moreover, availed himself of this remedy twice before, during the proceedings which he initiated to obtain refugee status. 4.4The State party also submits that this remedy is still open to the complainant even though there is normally a time limit of 15 days for filing a request. The law in fact allows for this deadline to be extended when special grounds are adduced to justify the delay. It should also be noted that, if this possibility of seeking a remedy had been used, the law furthermore allowed for any decision of the Federal Court to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and likewise to the Supreme Court of Canada. 4.5In support of its arguments, the State party refers to the decision taken by the Committee in the R.K. v. Canada case (CAT/C/19/D/42/1996), where it had deemed that the complaint should be declared inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because the complainant had not made an application for a judicial review challenging the rejection of the request for asylum and had furthermore not filed an application for humanitarian status. In the P.S. v. Canada case (CAT/C/23/D/86/1997), also cited by the State party, the Committee had in particular deemed that the fact that the complainant had, inter alia, failed to enter an application for a judicial review was contrary to the principle of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The State party refers in addition to the Committee’s decision in the L.O. v. Canada case (CAT/C/24/D/95/1997) concerning the absence of a request for humanitarian status. 4.6Referring lastly to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the State party argues that a judicial review is an effective remedy within the meaning of article 13 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and that, even in cases where the complainant might be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to his country, he must observe the formalities and time limits of the domestic procedures before turning to an international body (Bahaddar v. the Netherlands, No. 145/1996/764/965, 19 February 1998). 4.7The State party concludes that, for these various reasons, the Committee should declare the present complaint inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Comments by the complainant