CAT/C/43/D/331/2007 English and had not been translated for the complainant, no objection had been raised during the hearing or in the months thereafter. On these grounds, in May 2006 the complainant applied to the Board to review its previous decision. On 8 June 2006, the Board rejected the complainant’s application on the grounds that it had “very limited jurisdiction to reopen hearings”. It is able to do so only in cases where the “principles of natural justice” have been breached, which according to the Board did not apply in the present case. The Federal Court rejected the application for leave and for judicial review without a hearing and without giving a reason. 2.6 On 5 May 2006, the complainant submitted the application for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) with a covering letter requesting a hearing under article 113 (b) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.4 He was not called to appear and his PRRA application was rejected on 28 October 2006 on the grounds that he had not established that he risked “torture or cruel or untoward treatment or punishment or a threat to [his] life upon deportation to [his] country of nationality or habitual residence” and that no “new items of evidence had been submitted to support [his] application”. 2.7 The applicant was summoned to Citizenship and Immigration Canada5 Hull to receive the PRRA decision. As the summons arrived on 14 December 2006, after the proposed date of the meeting on 7 December, the complainant was summoned to appear immediately before CIC. On 15 December 2006, the complainant reported to CIC, where he was notified of the PRRA decision and immediately arrested. His wife posted bail of 5,000 Canadian dollars for his release. On 18 December 2006, the complainant applied for leave and for judicial review of the PRRA decision. 2.8 Being due to be deported from Canada to Burundi on 19 January 2007, the complainant submitted a motion to stay the deportation to the Ministry of Justice of Canada on 15 January 2007, which was received by the Federal Court the following day. On 17 January 2007, the Federal Court refused to hear his request. The applicant did not report for deportation, but continued to seek remedy before the Federal Court. 2.9 On 29 March 2007, the Federal Court rejected the complainant’s application for leave and for judicial review of the PRRA decision, which had been submitted on 18 December 2006. The immigration authorities have issued a warrant for the complainant’s arrest and ordered his deportation. The complaint 3. The complainant asserts that if he is deported to Burundi he will be subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention, on account of his membership of and work for PA-Amasekanya. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 23 April 2008, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and, subsidiarily, on the merits of the complaint. It argues that the complainant’s communication is inadmissible because it does not meet the minimum requirements to make it compatible with article 22. It also expresses the view that the complaint is based on mere theory and does not show that the author personally risks being subjected to torture if deported to Burundi. In particular, it maintains that there is no proof that the Burundian authorities have tortured any member of the organization to which the complainant belongs. 4 5 4 IRPA. CIC. GE.09-46723