CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 4.23 The State party argues that while objective reports indicate that many returnees undergo security screening by immigration officials or members of the State Intelligence Service upon returning to Sri Lanka, in the absence of significant links to LTTE, other groups acting in opposition to the Government, outstanding court orders or arrest warrants or otherwise being on a “stop” or “watch” list, such verifications would not normally create a real and personal risk of irreparable damage. 20 According to the information provided by the author, the Sri Lankan authorities did not attempt to prevent him from leaving the country in 2011 and he left with a valid passport. There is also no indication that the author is the subject of a court order or arrest warrant, or is otherwise on a “stop” or “watch” list. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 25 January 2016, the author submitted his comments on the observations of the State party. He states that on 9 December 2015, he filed an application for permanent residence in Canada based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. He also claims that his application for a judicial stay before the Federal Court was discontinued by means of a motion dated 4 December 2014 following the Committee’s request to the State party to refrain from deporting the author to Sri Lanka while his case was under consideration. 5.2 Concerning the State party’s submission that the author’s allegations under article 9 (1) do not fall within the scope of the Covenant, the author argues that the State party has the obligation not to deport or remove an individual to a country or region where he or she would face a real risk of irreparable harm 5.3 The author submits that he was not able to claim refugee protection before arriving in the State party. He explains that, as mentioned in his affidavit of May 2012, the ship on which he was working was docked for very short periods of time prior to its arrival in Canada and that, due to his work on the ship, he was not able to leave the vessel until they had arrived in Canada. 5.4 Regarding the State party’s submission that the pre-removal risk assessment officer determined that insufficient evidence was provided to demonstrate that the author had been detained and tortured by Sri Lankan authorities, he explains that he had no way of demonstrating this fact through documentary evidence. He states that the Sri Lankan authorities would clearly not issue any documentation regarding unlawful detention or torture of civilians by those same authorities. The author states that he is “unsure” how the State party could expect him to demonstrate this matter other than through direct questioning, when his testimony could be properly evaluated, as is the case during refugee hearings, especially on issues central to the decision made. 21 5.5 The author also refers to the Committee’s Views in Choudary v. Canada, in which it observed that because of his apparent failure to establish his identity at the initial stage of the procedure, the author was not given any further opportunity, in the framework of the Immigration and Refugee Board, to have his refugee claim assessed, even though his identity was later confirmed. While the author’s claim that he faced a risk of being tortured and of suffering threats to his life was assessed during the [pre-removal risk assessment] procedure, [the Committee considered that] such limited assessment could not replace the thorough assessment that should have been performed by the Immigration and Refugee Board. Notwithstanding the deference given to the 20 21 8 UNHCR, Eligibility Guidelines, p. 5; Council of State of the Netherlands, X. v. State Secretary for Security and Justice (case No. 201400058/1/V2), decision of 20 June 2014, unofficial translation by UNHCR available from www.refworld.org/docid/53d89aa44.html; Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia, case No. 1304427, decision of 11 October 2013, para. 47. Section 167 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations states: “For the purpose of determining whether a hearing is required under paragraph 113 (b) of the Act, the factors are the following: (a) whether there is evidence that raises a serious issue of the applicant’s credibility and is related to the factors set out in sections 96 and 97 of the Act; (b) whether the evidence is central to the decision with respect to the application for protection; and (c) whether the evidence, if accepted, would justify allowing the application for protection.”