CCPR/C/125/D/2238/2013 probative value, given that they had several procedural flaws.14 Moreover, the authors were not able to explain how they had obtained these documents. Therefore, the State party claims that the authors did not establish real and personal risk of harm upon return to India and did not provide evidence showing that the Canadian decision makers were biased or arbitrary or had failed to accord them a fair and thorough hearing of their claims. 6.5 Concerning the alleged “new evidence” provided by the authors to the Committee, the State party notes that it consists only of affidavits from individuals attesting to their risk of harm upon return to their home town in Punjab. Hence, the State party submits that, once again, the authors did not establish a real and foreseeable risk of harm throughout India. 6.6 Regarding the authors’ allegations of a violation of article 13 of the Covenant, the State party argues that they are inadmissible on grounds of non-substantiation. 6.7 The State party rejects the allegation that the 12-month ineligibility period for submission of a pre-removal risk assessment application is a violation of its obligations under article 13 of the Covenant. The State party notes that the authors’ risks in their country of origin have already been thoroughly assessed on the basis of an oral hearing before the Refugee Protection Division as well as a second pre-removal risk assessment. The State party considers that a further risk assessment within the interval of 12 months is not generally necessary. Furthermore, the State party submits that when there has been a change in country conditions, there are exemptions to the application of the 12-month preremoval risk assessment ineligibility period.15 The State party also notes that claimants who allege to have new personalized evidence of risk have the possibility of requesting a deferral of removal. The State party considers that there was no real substance in the “new information” presented by the authors before the authorities; otherwise, the 12-month ineligibility period would not have been applied to them. 6.8 The State party argues that the proceedings challenged by the authors satisfy all guarantees contained in article 13 of the Covenant. The States party notes that the authors: (a) had their case heard by an independent tribunal; (b) were represented by counsel; and (c) had full opportunity to participate in the proceedings (both orally and in writing), to apply for judicial review of denial decisions and to apply for pre-removal risk assessment and permanent residence on humanitarian and compassion grounds. 6.9 The State party further notes that article 13 does not grant non-nationals a broad right to asylum or a right to remain in the territory of a State party. After the expiration of the authors’ visitor’s visas, they were allowed to stay in Canada for the purpose of having their refugee claim determined and their applications for pre-removal risk assessment and permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and assessed. The State party submits that article 13 is aimed at regulating only the procedure and not the substantive grounds for alien expulsions and that its purpose is to prevent arbitrary expulsions.16 6.10 In relation with the allegations made by the authors regarding a violation of article 14 of the Covenant, the State party submits that they are inadmissible on the grounds of incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant. The State party submits that the proceedings challenged by the authors do not involve either “the determination of any criminal charge” or “rights and obligations in a suit of law”. Thus, it claims that the provisions on criminal charges set forth in article 14 are irrelevant to the present communication.17 6.11 Furthermore, the State party objects to the allegations by the authors that “there are many numbers of violations of the right to a hearing or the right to an effective recourse”. The State party reiterates that the authors received two risk assessments, also reviewed by the Federal Court; applied for a third risk assessment (second pre-removal risk assessment 14 15 16 17 6 Such as the absence of dates, signatures and official stamps or seal, contrary to procedures followed in India. Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, section 112 (2.1). The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 15 (1986) on the positions of aliens under the Covenant, para. 10. The State party refers to Zundel v. Canada (CCPR/C/89/D/1341/2005), para. 6.8.