CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013 measure taken against him by the border official at the airport, he became subject to an exclusion order that could be enforced immediately given that the PRRA procedure does not have a suspensive effect on removals in such cases. According to the author, the procedure violates the principle of non-refoulement. The author also points out that he was never informed of his right to apply for asylum or protection and that, once the exclusion order had been issued, Canadian agents did not inform him of his right to file a PRRA application. 5.3 The author also challenges the PRRA procedure, given that the person being heard does not enjoy the same procedural guarantees as in a judicial or quasi-judicial procedure. He therefore claims to have been adversely affected by a number of breaches of procedural fairness rules by the PRRA agent. For example, the PRRA hearing was not recorded. Furthermore, the PRRA agent had all the notes of the officials who had questioned the author at his point of entry into Canada but he had not been given the same access. The agent also entered a complaint letter into evidence without sharing its content with him. 19 Referring to studies illustrating how difficult it is for asylum seekers to establish the facts motivating their application20 and guidelines on procedures to be put in place in respect of vulnerable persons,21 the author challenges the fact that the PRRA proceeding focused on his credibility by confronting him with interview notes taken when he was facing a risk of removal and was in a very fragile psychological state. 22 In this context, the authorities should have relied on the documentary evidence in the file rather than focus on the credibility of his statement. The border official ignored the evidence regarding the author’s religious practice as submitted by credible and reliable witnesses. 5.4 Regarding his conversion, the author refers to the evidence that was submitted along with his file and was not challenged during the PRRA. 23 The author also refers to documentary evidence annexed to the file that there had been a rise in extremism and the persecution of Christians in Egypt and that converts to Christianity were sentenced to death. He considers that these documents and evidence demonstrate that his fear of persecution in Egypt is well-founded. He adds that the Egyptian identity card contains information on the holder’s religion. Despite these submissions and evidence, the PRRA agent rejected the author’s request for protection without providing any reasonable arguments. The author considers that the State party should have determined whether he had a well-founded fear of being persecuted if returned to his country and that this was not done, including by the Federal Court, thereby putting his life at risk. While he admits making mistakes in his statement, the author stresses that some facts were not challenged. For instance, it had been demonstrated that his conversion and Christian faith were known by a number of people in Egypt and that a simple online search of his name yields information in this regard. It had also been demonstrated that Egypt monitored Internet posts very closely. According to the author, these facts are enough to substantiate the risk to his life and safety if he were to return to Egypt. 5.5 Lastly, the author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 20 (1992), which states that “States parties must not expose individuals to the danger of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of 19 20 21 22 23 GE.18-09612 The author does not specify to what complaint letter he is referring but notes that its use completely destabilized him since the agent clearly attached greater importance to the letter than to his statement. Without, however, providing specifics about the studies he cites. Which are reportedly available on the website of IRB but are apparently not followed by PRRA agents. The author claims that his psychological state, which was proven in the psychological assessment report of 3 September 2014, was not refuted by the PRRA agent. However, the agent did not take into account the findings of the report, which argued that the author might have difficulty making a statement in a stressful situation (“He might forget important details if he feels threatened or under pressure, his story could become confused and a degree of emotional or cognitive disorganization might ensue.”) The author states that he attended a number of churches in Canada, as attested to in his affidavit of 5 September 2014 and in letters from various pastors annexed to the file; that his conversion is clearly reflected in his paintings and the fact that he wears a cross around his neck; and that Pastor I.F. confirmed in a letter dated 4 January 2016, which was included in the file, that his conversion was genuine. 7