CCPR/C/115/D/2284/2013 2012, the Federal Court ordered a stay of removal. However, on 15 July 2013, the Federal Court upheld the decision, having concluded that the risk assessment officer did not err in rejecting the evidence that had been availab le at the time of the initial application for protection. Moreover, the Federal Court also reaffirmed that the fact that the author had produced a fraudulent membership card for the Association pour la promotion des libertés fondamentales au Tchad had contributed to the Board’s initial conclusion that the author lacked credibility. The Federal Court also found that the risk assessment officer had reached a reasonable conclusion when that officer had decided that the Refugee Protection Division would have re ndered the same decision if it had been presented with the new evidence produced by the author. 3 2.10 On 28 October 2013, the author submitted a second application for pre-removal risk assessment. 4 A stay of removal was granted pending completion of the process. His application was rejected on 20 November 2013. In support of his application, the author had submitted the same evidentiary materials that were attached to his application to the Committee (detailed in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 above). 5 The risk assessment officer did not accord probative value to the new materials, largely because of the chronological inconsistency between Mr. Guengueng’s statement and the author’s account. 2.11 On 27 November 2013, the author applied for a judicial review of the decision on his second pre-removal risk assessment application and a stay of the order for his removal to Chad. On 4 December 2013, the application for stay of his removal was rejected. The author’s date of departure was set for 10 December 2013. 2.12 On 6 December 2013, the author submitted a new application to the Committee for interim measures that would suspend his removal to Chad. In support of his application, he submitted a written statement dated 5 December 2013 from Jacqueline Moudeïna, a lawyer who is president of the Association tchadienne pour la promotion et la défense des droits de l’homme (Chadian Association for the Promotion and Defence of Human Rights) and coordinator of counsel for t he victims of Hissène Habré. Ms. Moudeïna noted in her statement that the author’s life would be at risk if he were to return to Chad, notably because of his activism in the Catholic Church, his work with a major Chadian human rights organization and unfou nded suspicions regarding his alleged support for the rebellion of February and March 2008. Ms. Moudeïna added that she had been able to examine most of the evidence submitted to the Canadian authorities and thought that there was a real and serious danger to the author. The facts had been checked with a number of persons who had attested to the danger faced by F.M. Ms. Moudeïna also confirmed that the member of the military who bears the greatest ill will towards the author is currently chief of security at the N’Djamena airport. Ms. Moudeïna concludes by saying that the author is facing a direct threat to his life and safety, and, in particular, the threat of forced disappearance. If he returned, he would immediately be arrested and tortured. 2.13 On 18 December 2013, the author informed the Committee that he had been detained on 10 December 2013 by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA). The author noted that he was accorded two hearings to contest his detention, on 12 and 16 December 2013, respectively, but that he had been informed by CBSA officers that the application to the Committee for interim measures was not binding on the Canadian __________________ 3 4 5 GE.15-21665 Including the letter from Father Diondoh stating that the persons who bore ill will towards the author were still searching for him. Which may be submitted one year after the first application for pre-removal risk assessment, if accompanied by new evidence. The author was able to submit only new evidence that post -dated the rejection of his first application on 31 May 2012. 5/13