CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 December 2014. The application for residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds does not result in a stay of removal unless it is approved in principle, which may take years of processing. He further submits that “it is absolutely unlikely that these applications will succeed”, that the decision of the pre-removal risk assessment is imminent, as it has a very short processing time and high rejection rate. After the dismissal of the pre-removal risk assessment or the application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, there is no other effective recourse available to stay his removal to Pakistan. The complainant maintains that the leave for a judicial review of any negative pre-removal risk assessment or refusal to grant residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is almost never granted. He maintains that he has exhausted all available effective remedies in the State party. 5.7 The complainant reiterates that he has established a strong prima facie case that he has been a victim of torture in the past and that he faces a substantial risk of torture. He further submits that he provided up-to-date information on the human rights situation in Pakistan and refers to the International Religious Freedom Report for 2013 of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the United States Department of State, which states that sectarian violence and discrimination against religious minorities continued,33 that the Government’s respect for and protection of the right to religious freedom remained poor, and that the Government’s limited capacity and will to investigate or prosecute the perpetrators of attacks against religious minorities allowed a climate of impunity to persist.34 The complainant also refers to documentation submitted previously to illustrate the human rights situation in Pakistan. He submits that the domestic tribunals in Canada had recognized “the type of abuse that is still taking place” and refers to a judgment of the Federal Court, Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration). 5.8 With regard to the internal flight alternative the State party had suggested exists for the complainant, he submits that the position of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is that when the persecutors are agents of the State, such an alternative does not exist. He further submits that he is at risk from Sunni terrorists who are everywhere in Pakistan, hence the internal flight alternative is not a safe option for him. He reiterates that the risk he is facing is personal. 5.9 The complainant submits that despite being a party to the Convention and having made a declaration under article 22 of the Convention, the State party “has now opted to adopt a new process to deport the individuals to countries where they are at the risk of life or torture” He submits that the recent statistics of the State party’s immigration authorities state that only around 33 per cent of the claims for refugee protection in Canada are accepted.35 State party’s further observations 6.1 On 19 June 2015, the State party requests the withdrawal of the Committee’s interim measures request and reiterates its submissions regarding the admissibility and merits of the communication. In addition, the State party objects to the complainant’s suggestion that its decision makers failed to take into account or arbitrarily rejected the evidence submitted in support of his claim for protection. The Refugee Protection Division considered the evidence submitted, including medical evidence, but granted it only limited probative value 33 34 35 See United States (Department of State), “Pakistan 2013 International Religious Freedom Report”, at page 17, available at: www.state.gov/documents/organization/222551.pdf. Ibid.p. 1. The complainant refers to Committee’s 2012 concluding observations (CAT/C/CAN/CO/6) and to the Amnesty International news release of 5 June 2012, entitled “Canada Must Move Immediately to Implement UN Committee against Torture Recommendations”. 15