CCPR/C/115/D/2284/2013 authorities and was subject to the discretionary decision of the Ministry of Public Safety. 2.14 On 7 March 2014, a new application submitted by the author for a judicial review of the risk assessment decision of 20 November 2013 (para. 2.10) was rejected by the Federal Court. 2.15 On 2 June 2014, the author transmitted to the Committee an order from CBSA in which he was instructed to report to Pierre-Elliot Trudeau International Airport, Montreal, on 10 June 2014, for his departure from Canada. 2.16 On 4 June 2014, the Federal Court rejected the author’s motion for a stay of the order for his removal to Chad. In this decision, the Court took note of the Committee’s request for interim measures but indicated that “Canada [was] not bound by such a recommendation”. 6 The Court also noted that, in seeking to substantiate the risks that he faced, the applicant had submitted the same arguments which had already been considered in connection with his asylum and pre-removal risk assessment applications and that he had been granted stays of removal and had availed himself of the numerous remedies provided for in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. By order dated 28 August 2014, the Federal Court rejected the author’s application for leave to appeal and judicial review of its decision of 4 June 2014. 2.17 On 10 June 2014, the author failed to report to the airport as instructe d by CBSA. He has since been living in hiding in Canada. The complaint 3.1 The author claims that he is being persecuted by the Chadian authorities for having provided drinking water to rebel groups but undoubtedly also for being a member of a non-governmental organization working for the defence of human rights. The author has strong reason to believe that he would be arrested at the airport, imprisoned and tortured by the Chadian authorities if he were to return. He recalls that he has already been the victim of torture and adds that if he were returned to Chad he would probably also be subjected, in violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, to the summary execution from which he narrowly escaped in the past. 3.2 The author’s asylum application was rejected by the Refugee Protection Division on the grounds that he was lacking in credibility, even though he had provided a substantial amount of evidence to support his application. The evidence consists of a copy of his membership card for the Association pour la promotion des libertés fondamentales au Tchad, photos taken when his house was being destroyed, photos showing his scars, articles relating to the events of 2 and 3 February 2008 and a letter containing the testimony of a priest in Chad. Additional testimony that had been submitted was rejected on the grounds that the persons who offered it did not have direct knowledge of the facts. 3.3 The author considers that the pre-removal risk assessment process is not in accordance with the Covenant, since, under section 113 (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, none of the evidence that was available at the time of the consideration of the case by the Refugee Protection Division could be re -examined by the officer conducting the assessment. 7 Moreover, the standard applied by a Federal Court judge when reviewing a decision by a risk assessment officer is that of a __________________ 6 7 6/13 Referring to a ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal, Ahani v. Canada (Attorney General), 2002 CanLII 23589 (ON CA). The Act states that “an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after the rejection or was not reasonably available, or that the applicant could not reasonably have been expected in the circumstances to have presente d, at the time of the rejection”. GE.15-21665