CAT/C/46/D/319/2007 8.6 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainant has failed to show in his submissions that he would be unable to lead a life free of torture in another part of India. The Committee, however, observes that the complainant has submitted evidence that he had been arrested in three different provinces - Haryana, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. The Committee also takes note of the evidence submitted that the Indian police continued to look for the complainant and to question his family about his whereabouts long after he had fled to Canada. In light of these considerations, the Committee does not consider that he would be able to lead a life free of torture in other parts of India. 8.7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the complainant has established a personal, present and foreseeable risk of being tortured if he were to be returned to India. 8.8 The complaint states that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the decision on deportation and that the judicial review of the Immigration Board decision, denying him Convention refugee status, was not an appeal on the merits, but rather a very narrow review for gross errors of law. The State party in response submits that the Board’s decision was subject to judicial review by the Federal Court. The Committee notes that according to Section 18.1(4) of the Canadian Federal Courts Act, the Federal Court may quash a decision of the Immigration Refugee Board if satisfied that: the tribunal acted without jurisdiction; failed to observe a principle of natural justice or procedural fairness; erred in law in making a decision; based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact; acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or acted in any other way that was contrary to law. The Committee observes that none of the grounds above include a review on the merits of the complainant’s claim that he would be tortured if returned to India. 8.9 With regard to the PRPA procedure of risk analysis, to which the complainant also subjected his claim, the Committee notes that according to the State party’s submission, PRRA submissions may only include new evidence that arose after the rejection of the refugee protection claim; further, the PRRA decisions are subject to a discretionary leave to appeal, which was denied in the case of the complainant. The Committee refers to its Concluding observations (CAT/C/CR/34/CAN of 7 July 2005, para 5 (c)), that the State party should provide for judicial review of the merits, rather than merely of the reasonableness, of decisions to expel an individual where there are substantial grounds for believing that the person faces a risk of torture7. The Committee accordingly concludes that in the instant case the complainant did not have access to an effective remedy against his deportation to India, in violation of article 22 of the Convention against Torture. 9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considers that the State party's decision to return the complainant to India, if implemented would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee also considers that in the instant case the lack of an effective remedy against the deportation decision constitutes a breach of article 22 of the Convention. 10. In conformity with article 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee wishes to be informed, within 90 days, on the steps taken by the State party to respond to these Views. [Adopted in English, French, and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic, Russian and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 7 See T.I. v. Canada, complaint No. 333/2004, Views of 15 November 2010, para. 6.3. 11