CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013 impartial authorities. However, following an in-depth hearing and the consideration of written statements submitted by the parties, the Canadian authorities concluded that the author’s claim that he would suffer irreparable harm if removed was not credible. 4.4 In order to give the author the opportunity to explain the irregularities in his statement, IRCC held an oral PRRA hearing on 1 October 2013.15 The author was asked clearly worded questions designed to clarify contradictions in his statements on several occasions. Yet, not only was his original story judged not to be credible, his later explanations to correct the contradictions were found to be inconsistent and implausible as well. In addition, the author did not provide any objective evidence of the assault of which he claimed to have been a victim or of the alleged death of his partner, whose last name he did not reveal,16 nor did he produce a medical report describing the injuries he claimed to have sustained. Moreover, he did not provide any supporting documents, such as a death certificate or media report of the assault, to corroborate the claim concerning his partner’s death, or a photograph of his partner, either alone or together with the author. 4.5 In addition, the State party considers that the author’s allegations are incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant insofar as States parties do not have the obligation to refrain from returning a person even if there is a risk that the person’s rights under articles 9 (1), 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant will be violated because these articles do not apply outside the territory of a State party. Canada can, therefore, expel foreign nationals to countries where these articles might be infringed. The State party points out that it is only on an exceptional basis that the Committee has ascribed extraterritorial scope to rights enshrined in the Covenant, thereby respecting the instrument’s largely territorial application. Removing the author to Egypt does not amount to any failure whatsoever to observe the country’s obligations under articles 9 (1), 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant. 17 This practice is in line with the territorial application of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as defined by the European Court of Human Rights. 18 The States parties to the Covenant do not have an obligation to ensure, prior to returning foreign nationals to their country of origin, that the conditions in the receiving country completely and effectively satisfy each and every substantive guarantee in the Covenant or that these rights are respected there, except where the conditions violate the guarantees set out in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Limiting a State’s power to control immigration at its borders by giving all the articles of the Covenant extraterritorial scope would amount to denying State sovereignty. Consequently, the claims that these articles would be violated are incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant, in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant and rule 96 (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. In the alternative, the State party considers that the claim regarding article 17 is inadmissible on grounds of the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because it was never raised before the Canadian authorities. 4.6 The State party further considers that the author has not exhausted available domestic remedies, thereby rendering his communication inadmissible. On 4 April 2014, the Federal Court granted the application for leave to seek judicial review in relation to the PRRA decision, which is a remedy that could provide the author with the desired redress. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 8 January 2016, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations in which he repeats his claims under articles 6, 7, 9, 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant. 5.2 The author points out that not having requested asylum immediately upon arrival in Canada had meant that he could not submit an application to IRB. As a result of the 15 16 17 18 6 The State party specifies that hearings are not usually held in relation to PRRA applications unless the applicant’s credibility is in doubt. The PRRA decision of 26 February 2015 does, however, mention the name Hany Soleiman or Souleiman. The State party refers to paras. 3, 10 and 12 of the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. See Soering v. United Kingdom, No. 14038/88, 7 July 1989, para. 86. GE.18-09612