CAT/C/43/D/331/2007 droits de l’homme, which mentions that Mr. Minani is particularly exposed to such risks. The State party questions whether the person meant in that letter is really Mr. Minani, as he himself had declared during the Federal Court hearing of 23 September 2005 that he was a mere member of PA-Amasekanya and had shown that he had only taken part in a radio broadcast. 4.11 The “numerous, sometimes mass, detentions” mentioned by the complainant occurred in February and May 2004. All of the organization’s members arrested during those events have since been released. Thus, there is not, at present, any risk of being imprisoned on account of belonging to PA-Amasekanya. The State party recalls that article 3 of the Convention cites the danger of being subjected to torture — not detention — as the basis for the principle of non-refoulement. The State party argues that the scope of article 3 does not extend to the risk of treatment prohibited under article 16 of the Convention, as it mentions only torture as defined by article 1. The State party considers that the complainant has not demonstrated that the conditions of detention in Burundi are inhuman, cruel or degrading. 4.12 As a subsidiary argument to its observations on admissibility, the State party maintains that the complaint should be found inadmissible on the merits for the abovementioned reasons. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 5.1 With regard to the complaint being inadmissible on the grounds that the allegations put forward by the complainant lacked foundation, counsel considers that there have been obvious errors and serious irregularities in the due process. Counsel maintains that the Committee should therefore rule on these issues. He refers to the obvious error in the decision of 7 September 2005 excluding the complainant from the refugee protection system. Despite the obligation under Canadian law to translate evidence used against a person appearing in court into his or her language, no one had translated the footnote contained in the Human Rights Watch report used during the Immigration and Refugee Board hearing. The State party cannot evade its obligation to translate this evidence on the pretext that the complainant was allowed enough time to obtain a translation of the document. The complainant adds that the Board’s decision did not even mention this footnote, which should have precluded it from constituting evidence which could be used to exclude the complainant. The latter believes that this document was central to the decision to exclude him. With regard to the other documents used by the authorities, the complainant considers them to be irrelevant, as they simply repeat the “clever comments” of government spokespersons, without mentioning any specific crimes attributable to Amasekanya. 5.2 According to the complainant, the irregularity of the procedure rests on the fact that he was denied the protection associated with refugee status. The complainant notes that the organization to which he belongs is a peaceful one. In support of his argument, he quotes an affidavit from the President of PA-Amasekanya, which refers to acts of persecution, such as the police breaking up one of the organization’s meetings on 13 October 2007. The affidavit mentions the arrest on 21 October 2007 of 10 of the organization’s members, who were reportedly tortured and beaten during their detention and to whom their families were not permitted to bring food. The President of PA-Amasekanya adds that the members of the organization risk being imprisoned, tortured or beaten every time they hold a demonstration. Some members of the organization have been killed by genocidal groups in Burundi. The complainant believes that his membership of PA-Amasekanya exposes him to the same risk of torture as those other members who have already been arrested and tortured. The complainant also mentions the arrest of his brother, Jean-Paul Minani, and subsequent disappearance since 2004. GE.09-46723 7