CCPR/C/116/D/2060/2011 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In a letter dated 16 February 2012, the author submitted, through his counsel, his comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits. The counsel informed the Committee that despite prior arrangements with the author, she was unable to contact him after his removal to Zimbabwe. He reiterated the allegations submitted in the original communication. 5.2 The counsel submits that the author exhausted all effective and domestic remedies. The application for judicial review to the Federal Court against the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board in relation to his application for refugee protection is not an effective remedy since there is no reasonable prospect of success. The Federal Court’s competence on judicial review is very limited. Access to judicial review of decisions under immigration legislation is subject to a leave requirement that is interpreted inconsistently by the Court, leading to arbitrariness. Furthermore, leave for judicial review is granted in about 10 per cent of applications and only 0.4 per cent of the Board’s decisions are overturned by the Federal Court.15 The competence of the Federal Court in examining a judicial review is limited to gross errors such as errors of jurisdiction, failure to observe a principle of natural justice or other procedure required by law, errors of law and findings of fact made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before the Board. 5.3 Regarding PRRA, it is argued that such an application in itself should not be considered an effective remedy since it is rarely successful. In the alternative, the application for judicial review to the Federal Court is not an available remedy against a negative PRRA decision. In the author’s case, the PRRA evaluation in itself was not an effective remedy since the authorities that considered his PRRA application did not conduct a thorough and adequate investigation. Therefore, the evaluation carried out by the authorities within the context of the PRRA decision amounted to an arbitrary evaluation and a denial of justice. 5.4 The deportation of the author to Zimbabwe created a real and foreseeable risk of irreparable harm, in violation of his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, as submitted in his original communication. The political situation in Zimbabwe remains fragile and the State party itself recognizes this situation, for example by having a moratorium on deportations and banning the export of arms and related material to Zimbabwe. 5.5 The author will not be able to access or afford antiretroviral medications in Zimbabwe. Having lived outside Zimbabwe for more than 14 years, and in the light of his health condition, it is unlikely that he will be able to get a job or set up a business. According to the World Bank, the per capita gross national income in Zimbabwe is just over US$ 38. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that a person can earn a sufficient wage to be able to afford the monthly cost of antiretroviral medications as indicated by the State party (US$ 30). In addition, the author has no immediate family in Zimbabwe. 5.6 The State party also violated the author’s rights under article 14 (1) (2) and (3) (c) of the Covenant. It failed to provide a reasonable or objective ground for its decision to deport the author prior to giving him a fair and public trial in regard to the charges laid against him on 30 May 2011 for assault related to alleged domestic violence against his wife. Therefore, the State party did not provide the author with a fair trial by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, in violation of his rights under article 14 (1). The State party relies on unproven charges against the author, despite the fact that there was no determination 15 10 Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Immigration and Refugee Board: Performance Report for the Period Ending March 31, 2010, p. 6.