CCPR/C/125/D/3041/2017 which feature many errors and misstatements. With regard to the evidence relating to the author’s persecution after the assassination of the President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the officer in charge of the pre-removal risk assessment noted that most people accused of conspiracy were military officers, and there is no evidence that someone with the personal profile of the author’s husband would be personally at risk. The State party recognizes that, in some situations, refugee claimants must resort to the use of false identities and false documents to flee their country of persecution. Once in a safe country and when seeking its protection, however, refugee claimants are expected to be truthful. The only authentic identity document that the author has presented to the State party’s authorities is a valid Angolan passport, with the result that she faces deportation to Angola, not to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Her other identity documents are by her own admission fraudulent or either have been tampered with or otherwise of dubious authenticity. In the circumstances, the State party is justified in relying on her one authentic identity document – an Angolan passport – and in considering her a citizen of Angola. 4.4 The author has provided no evidence that would support a finding that she would face human rights violations in Angola. The excerpts from several human rights reports concerning Angola that she attached to her complaint are general, and nothing in them relates to her personal situation. The general human rights situation in Angola, while in some respects problematic, does not indicate that someone with the author’s personal profile would be personally at risk if returned there. Furthermore, the author has presented no evidence that, if deported to Angola, she would face onward removal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The State party therefore considers the author’s allegations with respect to articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 inadmissible for lack of substantiation. 4.5 The State party submits that the author’s allegations under article 13 of the Covenant regarding the application of the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement are inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Claimants who return to Canada between border posts in order to evade the application of the Agreement, after having been found ineligible under it, are ineligible under section 101 (1) (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. In that situation, they are not returned to the United States, but are subjected to a pre-removal risk assessment to determine whether they are in need of protection, the procedure followed when the author and her two eldest children entered Canada in 2016. At the time of her refugee claim in 2009, when she first entered Canada, the author could have challenged her ineligibility and prospective return to the United States by way of an application for leave to apply for judicial review to the Federal Court, coupled with a motion for a judicial stay of removal. Contrary to the author’s assertions that no remedies were available to her, a refugee claimant in her situation does in fact have effective access to the Federal Court. The author did not challenge the decision to return her to the United States. 4.6 The author’s allegations under article 13 are also deemed inadmissible for lack of substantiation. The author’s complaint in this regard seems to be centred on the fact that she was not granted an oral hearing in the course of the pre-removal risk assessment process. Canada submits that the author was interviewed by Canadian immigration authorities a number of times prior to her application for pre-removal risk assessment, and in the course of those interviews was questioned specifically about her citizenship, identity and the authenticity of her documents. The officer in charge of the assessment based her finding that the author was a citizen of Angola on the author’s own statements and the author’s authentic Angolan passport. In the circumstances, there was no reason for the officer who was considering her application to interview the author again on exactly the same issues. Moreover, the author was able to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision on her pre-removal risk assessment, as well as for a judicial stay of removal. The author was allowed to stay in Canada for the purpose of having her application assessed. Since it has been determined that the author is not at risk in Angola, the country of which she is a citizen and to which she is to be removed, and because she is subject to a lawful removal order, she is not “lawfully in the territory” of Canada. 4.7 Alternatively, the State party submits that the proceedings challenged satisfy the guarantees contained in article 13. As demonstrated by the domestic proceedings described above, the author had her claim for asylum considered and rejected, and her appeal 5