CCPR/C/127/D/2484/2014 police for questioning.9 No clear reason for the request was given. The police have been visiting the author’s wife continuously, a practice that continues to the present. 5.5 The author also objects to the State party’s argument that he has failed to exhaust all domestic remedies by not requesting administrative deferral of removal. Such a request was requested and rejected on 25 November 2014 in a letter that also sets the date of removal of the author. The author therefore requests the Committee to consider his communication admissible, keep the interim measures in place and find a violation on the merits. Additional observations From the State party 6.1 In its supplementary observations, dated 1 March 2016 and 12 January 2017, the State party submits that on 19 September 2015 the author applied for a pre-removal risk assessment and provided additional materials in support of that application on 29 September 2015. In accordance with section 232 of the Canadian immigration and refugee protection regulations, the removal order against the author was stayed pending the determination of the risk assessment. This means that the communication must be considered inadmissible for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 6.2 The pre-removal risk assessment process is founded on the domestic and international commitments to the principle of non-refoulement undertaken by Canada. Such applications are considered by officers trained to assess risk and, more particularly, to consider international human rights obligations relating to refugee protection. Those officers also receive training on administrative law and jurisprudence and keep up to date with developments around the world. For the author, whose claim has already been evaluated by the Refugee Protection Division, a pre-removal risk assessment is to determine whether there have been any new developments since the decision taken by the Refugee Protection Division and whether there is new evidence to demonstrate that he is now at risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment. The risk assessment process for the author will involve an updated assessment of such risks. In his application, the author raised many of the same aspects and allegations that were contained in his initial submission to the Committee. The risk assessment should be considered as a remedy, since it addresses the same allegations as are currently being considered by the Committee. 6.3 In its additional submission dated 11 January 2017, the State party provides a copy of the findings from the pre-removal risk assessment to the effect that the author would not be subject to risk of persecution, torture, risk to life or risk of cruel or unusual treatment or punishment if he returned to Sri Lanka. The State party further submits a letter from a member of the Sri Lankan parliament, which was not previously submitted to the Canadian authorities, nor was it in the author’s initial submission to the Committee. In the letter, the Member of Parliament states that the author was unofficially interrogated and detained on many occasions. Those claims were not previously made and this unexplained inconsistency weakens his credibility. From the author 7.1 In his additional submissions, dated 11 May 2016 and 1 March 2017, the author reports on the results of his application for a pre-removal risk assessment, which was rejected on 17 March 2016. The author submits that the domestic remedies have therefore been exhausted. He mentions again the support letter from the NGO where he worked as a field staff member and the fact that his wife received a “message form” from the Sri Lankan police. The author therefore claims that he will be detained at the airport upon his return. His wife has also been visited by unknown armed individuals asking to see him. While no arrest warrant has been issued against him, he is a Tamil NGO worker who is wanted for questioning by police. 7.2 A recent case decided by the Immigration and Refugee Board, dated 4 February 2015, corroborates the fact that local community workers, such as the author, are 9 6 The author provides a copy of what appears to be a notice from the police, dated 7 March 2015. No reason is given for the notice.