CAT/C/45/D/333/2007 3.4 No request for interim measures has been submitted by the complainant. State party’s admissibility and merits observations: 4.1 On 28 May 2008, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint for incompatibility with the Convention and non-substantiation in relation to his claim under article 1, and for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and lack of substantiation in relation to his claims under article 3 of the Convention. 4.2 The State party recalls the allegations advanced by the complainant and submits that he did not present any new arguments to the Committee and merely reiterated the arguments presented to the Canadian authorities. He did not establish that any of the findings of the domestic decision-makers considering his case were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of natural justice. Thus, the State party assumes that the complaint is based on his dissatisfaction with the domestic decisions. 4.3 The State party notes that the complainant did not explain how Canada had allegedly violated his rights under article 1 of the Convention. Even if the complainant’s story of alleged past torture by Uzbek authorities were true, it does not engage Canada’s responsibility under article 1, in fact or in law. This aspect of the complaint is thus devoid of substantiation and incompatible with the Convention. 4.4 On domestic remedies, the State party submits that the complainant did not apply for leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the negative decision on his H&C application. It recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence and submits that the H&C application is an effective remedy that must be exhausted1. The H&C application can be based on risk, and if accepted, and subject to security and criminality prohibitions, which are not present here, may lead to permanent residence which can in turn lead to citizenship. 4.5 The State party adds that the complaint is manifestly unfounded, as the complainant did not substantiate his allegations under article 3 even on a prima-facie basis. It recalls the Committee’s General Comment on article 3, which places the burden of proof on the complainant to establish that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The ground on which the claim is established must be substantial, and must “go beyond mere theory or suspicion”. The State party submits that the complainant’s credibility is in question and his claims have been inconsistent and implausible; there is no medical or other credible evidence that he was tortured in the past; even if he had been tortured, this would have been in 1995, i.e. not in the recent past; there are no credible reasons to consider that he fits the personal profile of someone who would be of interest to the Uzbek government or particularly vulnerable if returned to Uzbekistan. 4.6 The State party submits that the analysis of the evidence and the conclusions drawn by the Board as well as by the PRRA officer, who assessed the risk, to which the complainant may be exposed if returned to Uzbekistan, were appropriate and well-founded. It recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence that it cannot review credibility findings, “unless it is manifest that the evaluation was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice”2. It cites several examples of inconsistencies and lack of credibility in the complainant’s statements. He provided contradictory evidence about his identity documents, first telling immigration 1 The State party refers to the Committee’s arguments as summarized in paras 4.3-4.6 in T.A v. Canada, case No: 273/2005 (2006) as well as to the findings of Human Rights Committee in Khan v. Canada, communication No. 1302/2004 (2006) and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Harte v Canada, 11.862 (2005). 2 S.U.A. v. Sweden, Case 223/2002 (2004), para 6.5, A. K. v. Australia, case 148/1999 (2004), para 6.4 and others. 4