CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 State party’s further observations 6.1 On 12 August 2015, the State party requested the lifting of interim measures. The State party further considers that the author does not face irreparable harm if returned to Bangladesh, a condition required for the maintenance of interim measures under rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party reiterates its observations referred to in paragraph 4.11 concerning conditions in Bangladesh since January 2014. The State party also reiterates the observations referred to in paragraph 4.10 concerning the claim that the general human rights situation in Bangladesh regarding journalists is insufficient to establish that the author faces a real and personal risk of irreparable harm. On this issue, the State party considers that there is reason to believe that Bangladesh, which constitutionally guarantees freedom of expression and of the press, would be adequately equipped to protect the author. The State party cites the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review of the Human Rights Council on Bangladesh, in which the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh demonstrated awareness of the situation and claimed that “all reported cases of violence against journalists were followed through with investigation and prosecution, and some had been brought to closure”.14 The State party further notes that the report indicates that Bangladesh supported several recommendations relating to the safety of journalists and the promotion and protection of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. The State party reiterates its observation, referred to in paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7, that the author has not shown that he had a particularly prominent profile as a journalist such that he would stand out from many other journalists in Bangladesh. 6.2 The State party further considers that, according to the author’s own evidence, the threats against him were limited to three specific incidents in 2011. He does not explain why he would be at risk as a result of those threats if returned to Bangladesh in 2015. Moreover, the risk faced by the author has already thoroughly been assessed by several domestic authorities: the Refugee Protection Division; a Canadian Border Services Agency enforcement officer, who considered the author’s application for an administrative deferral of removal; and a Senior Immigration Officer (Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer). The author did not apply for judicial review of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment decision. 6.3 On a general level, the State party also considers that requests for interim measures should be used with caution and reserved for prima facie meritorious cases. The State party emphasizes that it has a right to control the entry, residence and expulsion of aliens and, in particular, has the right to maintain the integrity of its immigration and protection determination system by removing claimants who have been determined not to be in need of protection. The State party states that it “has the utmost respect for the work of the Committee. However, it submits that the Committee should be reluctant to interfere with the removal of individuals found not to be at risk by domestic decision makers, especially in cases where their allegations and personal narratives are not consistent with a future risk of irreparable harm when current country conditions are taken into account. Individuals such as the author, whose allegations of risk have been thoroughly assessed and who have been found not to be at a real and personal risk should not be the subject of [interim measures.]” The fact that the author faces removal to a country with a problematic human rights record is not by itself adequate for the maintenance of interim measures, given the evidence that he does not face a real and personal risk of irreparable harm upon return. 14 (stating in part: “Those not supporting the Awami League are in the line of fire.”); Committee to Protect Journalists, “Bangladesh: attacks on the press in 2013”, 22 September 2014; and Odhikar, “Human Rights Monitoring Report (February 1-28, 2015)”, 1 March 2015. The State party cites A/HRC/24/12 (8 July 2013), paras. 67, 129.72, 129.77 and 129.101-129.104. 11