CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 would be in upon her return to Pakistan, those reports do not support the notion that they face a real risk of torture as defined by the Convention. 4.34 The State party notes that the communication includes allegations of risks of harm in Pakistan which are incompatible with article 3 of the Convention, namely the risk of arrest and imprisonment in relation to the accusation of adultery and the risk to her life (honour killing) by private individuals. Returning a person to a State where there are claims of risk of arrest, detention or imprisonment does not, in and of itself, mean that the person would face the risk of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. Even if the treatment that the complainant may be subjected to upon hypothetical arrest, detention or imprisonment could constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment contrary to Pakistan’s obligations under article 16 of the Convention, the obligation of non-refoulement under article 3 applies only to a real risk of being subjected to torture. Complainant’s comments 5.1 On 18 August 2013, the complainant maintained that a judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division decision was ineffective because applicants must first be granted leave to have a full judicial review hearing and 80 to 85 per cent of the requests for leave to the Federal Court were not granted as the cases that go to the Federal Court were not effectively reviewed or even heard by a judge. She submitted an academic article entitled “A refugee from justice? Disparate treatment in the Federal Court of Canada”10 in support of her argument and referred to the Committee’s decision in Nirmal Singh v. Canada.11 5.2 The complainant submitted that application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds would not have beeen an effective remedy in her case and referred to the Committee’s decisions in Kalonzo v. Canada and T.I. v. Canada.12 She also submitted that she was told by a lawyer that such applications could take up to 28 months to be decided and that she would be deported in the interim. The complainant also submitted that she did not have money to pay the lawyer’s fees and the fee for such an application. She further submitted that a stay of removal motion was not granted in the majority of cases and that the judiciary in Canada is not independent. 5.3 In her submission, the complainant enclosed a police report of the accusation of adultery against her and an arrest warrant issued by the Magistrates’ Court in Pakistan, which she did not submit with her initial communication. State party’s further observations 6.1 On 6 November 2013, the State party noted that the complainant’s submission contained two additional pieces of evidence dating from 2006: a copy of the police report regarding B.’s first information report to the police, alleging that the complainant and her daughters “are bad characters” and indicating that the complaint was received on 16 November 2006; and a judicial arrest warrant against the complainant, originating from a local court in Lahore District, indicating that it was issued in response to the 16 November 2006 complaint. However, in the English translation provided by the 10 11 12 12 See J. B. Gould, C. Sheppard and J. Wheeldon, “A refugee from justice? Disparate treatment in the Federal Court of Canada”, Law & Policy, vol. 32, No. 4 (October 2010), p. 454. Available from www.researchgate.net/publication/227642031_A_Refugee_from_Justice_Disparate_Treatment_in_th e_Federal_Court_of_Canada. Communication No 319/2007, Singh v. Canada, decision adopted on 30 May 2011. Communications No 343/2008, Kalonzo v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012; and No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010.