CCPR/C/125/D/2238/2013 application); applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; and sought leave to seek judicial review of their administrative removal decisions. Therefore, the State party submits that it is difficult to see how the authors have experienced a violation of their right to a hearing or an effective recourse. Lastly, the State party submits that the authors are dissatisfied with Canada’s determination that they are not in need of protection given that they can live without a real risk in another part of India. In this line, the State party notes that the authors’ lack of satisfaction is not proof of a violation of their procedural rights. 6.12 In relation with the allegations made by the authors regarding a violation of article 2 of the Covenant, the State party argues that this article does not recognize an independently available right to a remedy and cannot independently give rise to a claim in a communication,18 unless a violation of the Covenant has been established. The State party claims that, given that the authors have not established any of such violations, these allegations are also incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant. The State party adds that even if article 2 provided for a separate right, there would be no violation, given that the State party has provided the authors with several effective remedies to determine their claims. The State party claims that the authors have not demonstrated how such proceedings, either individually or taken together, might fall short of the State party’s obligation. 6.13 Lastly, the State party notes that it is not the role of the Committee to re-evaluate the facts and evidence of a communication, unless it is manifest that the evaluation by the domestic tribunals was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 19 In this line, the State party submits that the material presented by the authors cannot support a finding that the Canadian decisions suffered from any such defects. Authors’ comments on the State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 7.1 In their comments of 30 October 2015, the authors reiterate their arguments on admissibility and the merits. They submit that the evidence presented is overwhelming and that there is no objective reason for it to be given no weight at all. They submit that “this is arbitrary and discriminatory and there was a miscarriage of justice”. 7.2 The authors argue that the pre-removal risk assessment does not provide an effective recourse to ensure respect of the prohibition of non-refoulement to a substantial risk of torture. They submit that the Federal Court of Canada does not enforce compliance with the non-refoulement principle and does not provide a clear and effective recourse to victims of torture who apply for protection from deportation. The authors argue that there is a pattern of lack of respect for international law in the pre-removal risk assessment procedure and before the Federal Court on judicial review. 7.3 The authors reiterate that they have exhausted all domestic remedies. They informed the Committee that their second pre-removal risk assessment application was denied in December 2014 and that, in September 2013, after their son was born, they submitted an application for permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. 7.4 The authors contend that the evidence submitted shows new and ongoing danger and therefore should not have been rejected. They claim this was an arbitrary and wrongful analysis and a direct denial of justice. The authors state that they are shocked at how little importance has been given by the Canadian authorities to the letter of the Punjab Human Rights Organization submitted as new evidence. 7.5 The authors argue that the rejection by the pre-removal risk assessment officer based on purely procedural grounds despite all the evidence showing a substantial risk of torture does not respect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or Canada’s international human rights obligations. The authors submit that a political decision was taken to deny 18 19 The State party refers to, inter alia, P.K. v. Canada (CCPR/C/89/D/1234/2003), para. 7.6, and Human Rights Committee, S.E. v. Argentina, communication No. 275/1988, para. 5.3. The State party refers to, inter alia, Tarlue v. Canada (CCPR/C/95/D/1551/2007), para. 7.4. 7