CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014 that the author’s allegations about its refugee protection system and domestic processes are unjustified. 4.9 The State party submits that the author has not provided any new evidence to support his claims, which should therefore be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. In the event that the Committee considers the communication admissible, the State party submits that it is without merit, and requests the Committee to lift the interim measures. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 24 July 2015, the author provided comments on the State party’s observations, reiterating his claims under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant and regretting the confusion caused by the mistaken reference to articles 12 (4), 13 and 18 in his initial complaint. 5.2 The author submits that the State party’s arguments are without merit, since recent reports on country condition in Somalia support his claims under article 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. He also submits that the domestic proceedings did not constitute a complete assessment of his personal circumstances and were gravely flawed. 5.3 Recalling the jurisprudence of the Committee, the author asserts that interim measures are essential to the Committee’s role and mandate, and deportation risking harm prior to consideration of his complaint would “render examination by the Committee moot and the expression of its Views nugatory and futile”.10 The author submits that where there is a risk of irreparable harm, the right to an effective remedy requires that the alleged victim has the possibility to submit a communication to the Committee and to have it examined before being subjected to the alleged irreversible harm. He maintains that imposing a higher threshold on any class of individuals involves a determination that some individuals are more deserving of relief under the Covenant than others, in violation of the right to equality before the law enshrined in article 26 of the Covenant. 5.4 The author argues that, as articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are non-derogable, an individual’s criminal record is irrelevant to the examination of a complaint by the Committee. The author states that he is currently in immigration detention and maintains that his last conviction was for an offence that occurred on 8 September 2010, and that the State party has submitted no evidence to suggest that he would currently represent a danger to the Canadian public. He maintains that there is no urgency to remove him from Canada and that he has proposed a plan of release that is highly restrictive, mitigating any concerns about his past criminality, and does not rely on public funds. Concerning the State party’s assertion that the author’s communication provides no new arguments or additional evidence, he contends that the risk-related evidence he submitted is more recent than that considered by the domestic authorities when they assessed his case on 15 June 2012. 5.5 The author argues that in a situation as volatile as that in Somalia, current conditions must be considered in order to assess the personal risk for him. He submits that domestic proceedings in his case were arbitrary and manifestly unjust. The author maintains that the State party’s observation that interim measures are non-binding is inconsistent with the Committee’s position on the issue. 5.6 The author claims a violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant as the available domestic proceedings have not prevented the violation of his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. He argues that the risk of torture that he faces should have been better scrutinized.11 He submits that the danger opinion proceedings in his case were manifestly unjust and arbitrary as the evaluation of risk contemplated only evidence available prior to the decision of 15 June 2012. He considers that the conclusions of the Minister’s delegate dismissed the rest of the evidence without justification, disregarding the arguments that the danger the author posed to the public in Canada did not outweigh the absolute prohibition of refoulement of persons facing a risk of death, torture or ill-treatment. He adds that his 10 11 6 See communication No. 869/1999, Padilla and Sunga v. The Philippines, Views adopted on 19 October 2000, para. 5.2. See communication No. 1051/2002, Ahani v. Canada, Views adopted on 29 March 2004, para. 10.6. GE.17-03930