CCPR/C/115/D/2284/2013 residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which was rejected, as was the application for leave to appeal and judicial review of the decision by the Federal Court. Lastly, the author also had recourse to the pre -removal risk assessment process on two occasions. The two risk assessment applications, handled by two different administrative officers, were both rejected. Moreover, the first application was examined on the merits by the Federal Court, which rejected it on the grounds that the officer conducting the assessment had properly analysed the evidence and reached conclusions that were reasonable. As for the application for leave to appeal and judicial review of the second risk assessment decision, it remains pending. 12 However, the Federal Court refused to grant a stay of execution of the author’s removal order. Referring to the Committee’s general comment No. 15 (1986) on the pos ition of aliens under the Covenant, the State party notes that article 13 directly regulates only the procedure and not the substantive grounds for expulsion and concludes that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim that this provision has been violated; the claim should consequently be declared inadmissible. 4.9 In conclusion, the State party reiterates that the author has not substantiated his claims that he would suffer irreparable harm if he were deported to Chad. His claims were given thorough consideration and were rejected by all the Canadian authorities concerned. His claims should therefore be declared inadmissible under articles 2, 6, 7 and 13 of the Covenant. Alternatively, if the Committee were to find the communication admissible, then Canada would argue that it is unfounded for the very same reasons as previously adduced. 4.10 As regards the author’s current situation, the State party further notes that, following the Federal Court’s rejection of his application for a stay of ex ecution of the removal order, such an order was issued by CBSA in which the date of departure was set as 10 December 2013. In response to the Committee’s request for interim measures on 9 December 2013, the State party agreed to a stay of removal. The auth or is still in Canada. Despite the stay of his removal, however, the author should have reported to the airport as instructed on 10 December 2013 to meet with a CBSA agent, since he had not been informed of the issuance of a stay of the removal order by CB SA. Since he failed to do so, CBSA officers made certain inquiries in an attempt to locate him. When it was found that he did not reside at the address provided to the authorities and that he had no fixed address, the author was placed in detention pursuan t to section 55 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, since he was deemed to be at risk of failing to appear in the event of a removal order. 4.11 The reasons for the author’s detention were regularly reviewed by the Immigration Division, in conformity with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (sections 57 (1) and (2)). On 16 December 2013, an offer of release on bond of 2,500 Canadian dollars was made, on the condition that he remain at the address provided by the Canadian authorities at all times and that he report to a CBSA office within 48 hours of his release and every week thereafter. On 19 December 2013, the author was released on these conditions. Author’s comments on admissibility and merits 5.1 On 31 October 2014, the author submitted comments on the State party’s observations in which he reiterates his initial arguments. He points out that, despite the Committee’s intervention, he was ordered to report for a pre -removal interview on 23 May 2014 under the terms of a removal order which set his date of departure from Canada as 10 June 2014. Since he did not report on that date, he is now being sought and is living in hiding. Since he is in hiding and alone, he has no access to the __________________ 12 GE.15-21665 This was true at the time of the State party’s submission of its observations. The application was rejected on 7 March 2014 (see para. 5.1 below). 9/13