CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 8.2 The State party next clarifies that an interim measures request never suspends a removal order because such requests are not binding. However, the State party’s general practice is to defer removal in accordance with the terms of the interim measures request, because it takes its human rights obligations seriously and considers the Committee’s requests and views in good faith. 8.3 The State party notes that a notification that an individual can introduce an application for a pre-removal risk assessment can only be given after several steps have been taken. These include determinations of whether removal is operationally possible and whether it can be executed pending acquisition of travel documents, visas and final itinerary arrangements, and whether the individual concerned is eligible to apply for a preremoval risk assessment. Further considerations are whether the individual concerned has a valid travel document and modalities influencing when the in-person meeting can be arranged to notify the individual. 8.4 The State party clarifies that people eligible for a pre-removal risk assessment will not be removed until they have been notified of their eligibility, given an opportunity to submit their application, notified that a decision has been made and provided with a copy of that decision.37 8.5 In its further observations dated 11 May 2018, the State party confirms that there have been no changes in the complainant’s domestic proceedings. It notes that neither it nor the complainant have requested the suspension. A suspension can affect the State party’s efforts to streamline its immigration and protection system. Its authorities thoroughly assess allegations of risk in countries of origin. New evidence of personal risk may be presented in a request to defer removal. There is generally no need for multiple subsequent risk assessments during the Committee’s consideration of a complaint. The Committee should not permit the complainant to subvert the State party’s immigration and protection system by delaying removal so as to trigger eligibility for multiple domestic remedies. The State party reiterates its request to the Committee to move the complaint forward for consideration.38 8.6 On 28 September 2018, the State party informed the Committee that it had, regrettably, erroneously removed the complainant to India on 1 August 2018. It appears that, following the rejection of the complainant’s application for a pre-removal risk assessment on 9 July 2018, officials of the Canada Border Services Agency were unaware of the existence of the interim measures request and that Agency officials with knowledge of the request only learned about the removal on 29 August 2018. The State party states that the facts surrounding the removal were still being ascertained and that it would provide the Committee with further details as soon as possible. 39 8.7 In its further comments dated 19 February 2019, the State party specifies that an internal review of the facts surrounding the complainant’s removal had revealed that officers of the Canada Border Services Agency had incompletely reviewed two electronic databases, resulting in oversight of the interim measure. Other factors contributing to the erroneous removal were a lack of visual identification of an interim measure on the outside of the complainant’s physical file and the failure by the complainant and his counsel to mention the present complaint and the interim measures request during a hearing to review his detention on 30 July 2018. The State party has since taken corrective measures to ensure a similar situation would not reoccur, including centralization of responsibility for inputting the existence of interim measures requests in the databases as well as for tracking and reviewing them and increased visual identification of interim measures requests. 8.8 Given the content of the complainant’s affidavit dated 25 July 2018, particularly his statements that his claim for refugee status was false, and that he “decants from” his earlier 37 38 39 On 12 May 2017, the complainant was requested to submit comments on the State party’s submission by 12 June 2017. He did not do so, despite reminders sent on 6 September 2017 and 19 June 2019. On 25 May 2017, the complainant was requested to submit comments on the State party’s submission by 25 July 2017. He did not do so, despite reminders sent on 3 October 2017 and 1 April and 19 June 2019. On 3 October 2018, the complainant was requested to submit comments on the State party’s submission by 3 December 2018. He did not do so, despite a reminder sent on 1 April and 19 June 2019. 11