A decision on Mahjoub’s application for bail was pending at the time of writing. Case of Lai Cheong Sing and Family The use of diplomatic assurances in Canadian asylum cases is another disturbing development. Assurances have been sought in cases involving persons who do not have a security profile, but who were unsuccessful in their efforts to seek asylum. The case of the Lai family illustrates the danger that the use of diplomatic assurances in terrorism or national security cases poses to a broader pool of people subject to forced return. Lai Cheong Sing, his wife Tsang Ming Na, and three children were excluded from refugee status in June 2002 on the ground that there were reasons to believe they had committed serious non-political offenses, namely bribery and smuggling, in Hong Kong and China prior to arrival in Canada in 1999.160 In its ruling, the court overlooked substantial evidence that torture was pervasive in the Chinese criminal justice system and that persons interrogated in China regarding the Lai family’s activities had been illtreated. It also issued the controversial ruling, now on appeal, that China’s assurances against torture did not have to be evaluated separately from its assurances against the death penalty. The panel that made the decision to exclude the Lais from consideration for full refugee status did so based in part on assurances from the Chinese authorities that if returned, the Lais would not face the death penalty or torture; these assurances were assessed together and amounted to the following: In accordance with…Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China which stipulates that "death sentences shall be subject to approval by the Supreme People's Court," the appropriate criminal court will not sentence him [Lai] to death and even if it does, the verdict will not be approved by the Supreme People's Court, therefore, he will not be executed in any case if returned to China. At the same time, China is a state party to the U.N. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 160 Lai v. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Lai v. Canada), Federal Court of Canada, IMM-3194-02, 2004 FC 179, February 3, 2004 [online] http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fct/2004/2004fc179.shtml (retrieved February 26, 2005). The Lais were excluded from refugee status for the commission of serious non-political crimes outside the country of refuge prior to their admission to Canada. 55 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH VOL. 17 NO. 4(D)