CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 4.16 The State party maintains that it is open to the complainant submitting new evidence for the purposes of his pre-removal risk assessment to support his claim that he is currently at risk of harm if returned to Pakistan, including by reason of being a failed refugee claimant. It also maintains that if the complainant were determined by a pre-removal risk assessment officer to be a person in need of protection, he would not be removed from the State party and would be eligible to apply for permanent resident status. The State party observes that beyond noting that his complaint was filed before he was eligible to receive a pre-removal risk assessment, the complainant has not made any submission to this Committee that the assessment process would not provide an effective remedy in his case. 4.17 The State party further maintains that judicial review by the Federal Court does provide for judicial review of the merits. The Federal Court that performs judicial reviews does so by searching for factual errors, or errors involving both fact and law, generally on a reasonableness standard. If there is an error of law or an unreasonable finding of fact made in an administrative decision, such as a decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board or a pre-removal risk assessment officer, the Federal Court will grant leave to apply for judicial review and will set the decision aside and send the application back for redetermination by a different decision maker. 4.18 The State party also submits that an application on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate considerations is an effective domestic remedy available to those who have had their claim for protection denied, as successful applicants are allowed to remain in the State party. 4.19 Alternatively, the State party submits that the complainant’s communication is inadmissible on the grounds of incompatibility with the provisions of the Convention. As the Committee stated in its general comment no. 1, the obligation of non-refoulement in article 3 is confined in its application to cases where there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention. 10 The complainant’s allegations concern alleged threats from the Taliban in Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and “Sunni extremists generally”. All of these groups are non-State entities. The acts committed by these groups do not fall under the competence of the Committee. The complainant has produced no evidence and has not even alleged that the Government of Pakistan is in any way involved with or acquiescent in the activities of these groups. 4.20 The complainant does allege that the police failed to take action in response to two complaints made by him in 2010 and 2012, respectively. Objective country reports note that Pakistani police can be ineffective at addressing allegations of sectarian violence. 11 However, the complainant has not demonstrated that any failure by the police to act was tantamount to consent or acquiescence. Unlike in the case of Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia,12 there is no evidence, and the complainant does not allege, that the police were informed in advance of any specific threats faced by the complainant or that they were present at the time but failed to intervene. Moreover, some recent country reports suggest that the 10 11 12 November 2006, para. 6.4. See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 of the Convention, para. 1. The United Kingdom Home Office also notes that “the effectiveness of the police varies greatly by district, ranging from reasonably good to ineffective”. See United Kingdom (Home Office), “Country Information and Guidance, Pakistan: Background Information, including actors of protection, and internal relocation” (October 2014), para. 1.2.2, available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/361124/Pakistan_CIG_2014_10_06.pdf. See communication No. 161/2000, Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, decision adopted 21 November 2002, para. 9.2. 9