CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 immigration authorities to appreciate the evidence before them, the Committee [considered] that further analysis should have been carried out in this case. 22 5.6 As to the State party’s argument that the author would benefit from State protection given that the Sri Lankan Government has recently enacted legislation to provide protection and assistance to witnesses and victims of crime, the author argues that the adoption of new legislation does not demonstrate its effectiveness. Even if the Sri Lankan Government had the best intentions, the enacted legislation does not guarantee the independence of the new authority responsible for its implementation. 5.7 Finally, the author reports that he is attempting to obtain documentary evidence from Sri Lanka to corroborate his claims. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 18 August 2016, the State party submitted additional observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication and reiterated its request to lift the interim measures. The State party reports that, after careful consideration, the author’s application for permanent residence in Canada based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was denied on 15 July 2016. In doing so, the humanitarian and compassionate officer commended the author for the efforts he had made to establish himself in Canada, but noted that his establishment did not go beyond what would be expected of someone who has been in the country for almost five years. 6.2 The State party explains that the humanitarian and compassionate officer did not accept the author’s claim that he would face hardship in Sri Lanka as a result of the events that took place there in May and June 2011. The officer reiterated that the documentary evidence provided by the author, consisting of various news articles, did not support his claims that he had been the only witness to the shooting of R.C. and that he had testified to what he had allegedly observed. As a result, the officer did not give any weight to the author’s statement that he will be targeted by Sri Lankan authorities because of his alleged testimony. The officer also noted that the author had not provided any evidence to support his claim that he would be discriminated against when applying for employment in Sri Lanka because he was a young individual with no family or political connections, as the author has a significant history of previous employment in Sri Lanka. 6.3 The officer concluded that, while there would be a period of adjustment for the author to re-establish himself in Sri Lanka, he would be able to do so with the support and assistance of his family and friends. The officer was not satisfied that the humanitarian and compassionate considerations in relation to the author justified an exemption from the requirements of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. 6.4 The State party also states that on 5 August 2016, the author applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the humanitarian and compassionate decision. 23 6.5 The State party submits that the author has not yet specified how his rights under article 9 (1) would be violated if he were deported to Sri Lanka, nor has he provided any evidence to demonstrate an alleged violation. The State party argues that the author has not substantiated, on even a prima facie basis, his allegations of a real risk of a violation of article 9 (1) upon return, or that the necessary and foreseeable consequence of such a violation would amount to a violation of articles 6 (1) or 7. 6.6 Concerning articles 6 (1) and 7, the State party explains that contrary to the author’s assertion, the pre-removal risk assessment officer did not require him to provide “direct” documentary evidence from Sri Lankan authorities to prove that he had been detained and tortured by those authorities. However, the officer found that the author had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had been present at the protest in the Katunayake Free Trade Zone, that he was related to R.C., that he was the only eyewitness to the 22 23 See communication No. 1898/2009, Choudary v. Canada, Views adopted on 28 October 2013, para. 9.6. The State party does not provide further information. 9