returned to Sri Lanka. In the doctor's opinion, the author would have great difficulty functioning in that country because of his neurological difficulties. In spite of this, application was refused on the grounds of "medical inadmissibility" that the authors had not shown that they had established themselves economically in Canada. The family has been living on social assistance since their arrival in Canada and, given their circumstances, they might become a chronic welfare case. 5.9 In the medical report referred to by the immigration officer the doctor also indicates that some Tamil refugees he had examined stated that they were at greater risk in Sri Lanka if they had scars or signs of injury, as these could be regarded by the authorities as an indication that their injuries occurred while fighting with LTTE. The author's neurological limitations could be regarded as having been caused in this manner. If he were questioned by the authorities in Sri Lanka he would not be able to express himself verbally and someone who was unaware of his neurological limitations could regard this as being obstructive or antagonistic. 5.10 Counsel argued that neither the Government of Canada nor the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) evaluated the objective risk for the individuals in this particular case but only considered the question of deportations to Sri Lanka in general. 5.11 Counsel contended that returning a person who suffers from serious physical and mental damage as a result of human rights abuses to the country where he was subjected to those abuses constitutes inhuman treatment. The lack of medical care or proper psychiatric assistance in Sri Lanka could per se constitute a violation of article 16 of the Convention. Counsel, however, raised this as a circumstance aggravating the inhuman treatment involved in the deportation. Committee's decision on admissibility 6.1 At its twentieth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. The Committee was of the opinion that once the Humanitarian and Compassionate Grounds procedure, including a leave application addressed to the Federal Court, was completed, all available domestic remedies had been exhausted. Accordingly, article 22, paragraph 5 (b), did not prevent it from considering the communication. The Committee considered that there was no other obstacle to the admissibility of the communication. It therefore decided that the communication was admissible. Observations of the State party on the merits of the communication