CAT/C/43/D/331/2007 sent to the complainant’s counsel three months prior to his hearing and that his counsel had not objected to the evidence submitted in English. The Agency also argued that the document in question was only one of many items of evidence supporting its decision. On 8 June 2006, after hearing the complainant, the Board rejected the application to reopen the procedure. On 25 September 2006, the Federal Court rejected the complainant’s application for leave and for judicial review of the Board’s decision without giving a reason. 4.6 On 4 May 2006, the complainant applied for a PRRA.10 According to the State party, the complainant did not substantiate his application or provide any supporting evidence. When questioned about the description of the events that had led him to seek protection and about supporting evidence, the complainant indicated that relevant material would be provided in due course. Although reference was made to a letter attached to the application, the State party notes that no letter was attached thereto. On 28 October 2006, in the absence of this documentary evidence, the PRRA officer took a decision on the basis of the complainant’s initial case file and more recent documentary sources11 reporting that significant political changes had occurred in Burundi after the complainant had left. The PRRA officer rejected the complainant’s application on the grounds that he had not provided evidence that he was in danger of being subjected to torture or other prohibited treatment upon his return to Burundi. The State party adds that the PRRA officer acted in accordance with Canadian legislation, which does not require a hearing to be held if the officer concerned does not doubt the credibility of an applicant. On 18 December 2006, the complainant applied for leave and for judicial review of the PRRA officer’s decision. On 27 March 2007, the Federal Court dismissed this application. 4.7 On 15 January 2007, the complainant applied for a stay of the deportation order that was due to be executed on 17 January 2007. The Court rejected this application on the grounds that the complainant had not given good reason for having missed the application deadline. On 18 January 2007, a warrant for the complainant’s arrest was issued when he failed to appear at the office of the Canada Border Services Agency as agreed. On 19 January 2007, the author failed to report at Montreal Airport to be deported to Burundi. Mr. Minani has not contacted the Canadian authorities since that date and is currently in hiding. 4.8 The State party maintains that Mr. Minani’s application does not meet the minimum requirements to make it compatible with article 22 of the Convention. Article 3 requires “substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture”. “The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.” The State party considers that the conditions established under rule 127 of the rules of procedure have not been met. 4.9 The State party argues that the complaint is without merit given the lack of evidence of a personal risk of torture, whether as an individual or as a member of PA-Amasekanya. There is no evidence to indicate that any member of that organization has been tortured and the complainant refers solely to the risk of being arrested. He adds that detainees “are often beaten and tortured” in Burundian prisons. The State party considers that none of the elements in the case file provides evidence that torture is systemic or endemic in Burundian prisons. PA-Amasekanya is not among the groups whose members are particularly at risk in Burundian prisons. 4.10 The State party also points to the lack of evidence showing that the complainant risks imprisonment and, consequently, exposure to ill-treatment upon his return to Burundi. The complainant refers to a letter written by the President of the Ligue burundaise des 10 11 6 The complainant gives the date as 5 May 2006 and not 4 May 2006. The submission refers to the PRRA decision which mentions reports by non-governmental organizations, the State Department of the United States and the Canadian authorities. GE.09-46723