- 156 The State party submits, in addition, that the summons in itself does not establish that the petitioner would be at risk of being tortured. The “notice to appear” acts, in criminal cases, as an official notification that the participation of the person named is required in an investigation, either as a witness or an accused. Nothing supports the conclusion that the summons was issued for alleged political crimes. Furthermore, the petitioner has not provided any evidence that the Iranian authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest due to his failure to respond to the summons, nor did he indicate that he is still obligated to report under the summons. 4.5 With regard to the general situation in Iran, the State party submits that important changes have occurred since 1984, including the establishment of a Department of Human Rights within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the election of Mr. Khatami as President. Furthermore, the latest Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board’s publication on Iran has explained that the safety of return depends on the interpretation of general governmental policy by local authorities and, therefore, the mere allegation of a risk of torture because the petitioner is a refugee is insufficient to establish that he would personally face a risk of torture. The State party argues that the existence of a pattern of human rights violations in a country is not sufficient to determine that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. Comments by the petitioner 5.1 The petitioner submits that a decision to grant a minister’s permit or an exemption under section 114 (2) of the Immigration Act is entirely discretionary and executive. He would not be eligible for landing in Canada or given the required minister’s permit because of his convictions for sexual assault. The petitioner submits that the State party would not exercise its discretion in his favour. The only decision the petitioner could apply to review would be the decision to remove him to Iran. He filed a judicial review on this very issue, but the Federal Court denied his application. Therefore, counsel argues that the remedies suggested by the State party cannot be regarded effective domestic remedies. 5.2 The petitioner further submits that the cases referred by the State part are either easily distinguishable from the present case or entirely off the point. He submits that in P.Q.L. v. Canada,b the Committee found that all domestic remedies had been exhausted despite the fact that the petitioner could have made an application for humanitarian and compassionate relief. 5.3 The petitioner submits that he satisfies the factors listed in the Committee’s general comment on article 3. Furthermore, the Committee should have no confidence in the accuracy of the original risk assessment as the process did not involve an independent decision-maker, an oral hearing, rules of evidence or, at the time of the decision in the present case, written reason. The second risk assessment was made without the knowledge or participation of the petitioner and relies almost entirely on the research conducted by another office of the State party’s immigration office. 5.4 The petitioner submits that the Convention Refugee Determination Division accepted the allegations of torture set out in the petition. The petitioner is a Convention refugee and was found to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran. The conclusion that the summons was,