CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 evidence that all returnees are abducted, arrested and tortured in a systematic way. However, there are a number of reports which document cases and show the risk.”8 3.3 Finally, the author submits that the Canada Border Services Agency officer decided that his refugee claim was inadmissible although he had explained his situation and the reasons why he only claimed refugee protection 20 days after his arrival in Canada. He submits that he was never given an opportunity to explain his fear of persecution during an oral hearing, and that his story and the credibility of his claims were therefore never evaluated in person. The author states that the Agency erred in issuing an exclusion order against him so quickly and in abstentia, thereby breaching the principle of natural justice given the serious consequences of the removal order on his ability to claim refugee protection. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 6 November 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The State party argues that the author’s communication is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of effective and available domestic remedies and for nonsubstantiation. Concerning the author’s allegations under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, the State party submits that they are incompatible ratione materiae. 4.2 The State party submits that the author has not exhausted all available domestic remedies as he failed to make an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and he did not provide any explanation for his failure to do so, while this remedy offered him a reasonable prospect of redress. 4.3 The State party explains that the humanitarian and compassionate application and process is an important domestic remedy and regrets the Views of the Committee in some recent cases in which it determined that the humanitarian and compassionate application was an ineffective remedy that did not need to be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility. It argues that the humanitarian and compassionate process is a fair administrative procedure, subject to judicial review, that can result in an applicant being allowed to remain in Canada. The author has not raised any objections to the humanitarian and compassionate process and has not provided any evidence to substantiate that it would be ineffective or unfair in his particular case. 4.4 Concerning the author’s allegation that his removal to Sri Lanka would violate the State party’s obligations under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author does not specify how his rights under this article would be violated. It also considers that his allegations are incompatible with the scope of the State party’s obligations under article 9 (1), which does not impose an obligation on States parties to refrain from removing individuals who face a real risk of arbitrary detention in the receiving State. 4.5 The State party also submits that the author has not substantiated, on even a prima facie basis, his allegations of a real risk of irreparable harm upon return to Sri Lanka. It notes that the author alleges that he would face a risk of irreparable harm in Sri Lanka on two bases: (a) for being witness to human rights violations by the Sri Lankan authorities because, in 2011, he witnessed and provided information about the murder by Sri Lankan police of R.C, his cousin; and (b) for returning to Sri Lanka after a long time abroad, therefore being considered as a traitor who has discredited Sri Lanka. In support of his claims, the author relies on risk profiles set out in two reports. 9 4.6 The State party states that the author’s claims have been rejected by the competent authorities. After reviewing the author’s pre-removal risk assessment application and supporting evidence, the assessment officer concluded that the author had not provided sufficient evidence to corroborate his allegations of risk. The assessment officer found that there was insufficient evidence linking the author to R.C. and corroborating his participation in the demonstration during which R.C. was killed, or his involvement in the legal actions which followed. The State party reports that the Federal Court upheld the 8 9 4 Ibid., p. 19. See para. 3.2.