CAT/C/62/D/695/2015 and domestic courts have determined that humanitarian and compassionate officers are as independent and impartial as pre-removal risk assessment officers.4 4.5 As to the possibility of judicial review of the humanitarian and compassionate considerations and pre-removal risk assessment decisions, the State party notes inter alia that the function of judicial review is to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the decision-making process and its outcomes. The grounds for review listed in section 18.1 (4) of the Federal Courts Act cover all of the substantive ways in which a decision could potentially be reviewed in any context: whether the decision-maker acted within its jurisdiction; whether the decision-maker complied with procedural fairness principles; whether the decision-maker made a factual error; and whether the decisionmaker made a legal error. Thus, in order properly to carry out its responsibilities, the Federal Court would necessarily need to review an applicant’s claim of being returned to torture in his or her country of origin. 4. 6 The State party provides a detailed description of the asylum proceedings under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and points out that the complainant’s asylum request was first examined by the Refugee Protection Division, which is an independent, quasi-judicial, specialized tribunal. At that hearing, he was represented by counsel and had the right to provide documentary evidence and oral testimony and to make submissions. Subsequently, the Federal Court examined his application for leave to seek judicial review on 18 March 2015. 4.7 The complaint is manifestly unfounded. It is essentially based on the same allegations that the complainant had made before the State party’s authorities in domestic proceedings, which were found to be without merit by independent and impartial decisionmakers. The complainant has not demonstrated that he personally faces a real risk of irreparable harm if returned to India. The Refugee Protection Division denied his refugee claim on the basis that his allegations were not credible and that he had an internal flight alternative. It stated that his accounts had been implausible, and that there had been omissions and contradictions in the evidence given. The complainant had been given the opportunity to explain the inconsistencies in his evidence at the hearing, but the Division had not found his explanations convincing. 4.8 The State party refers to the decision by the Refugee Protection Division and maintains that the complainant’s allegations that the Indian police perceive him to be a supporter of terrorism are not credible, in particular because, if he had been a terrorist suspect, he would not have been allowed to travel to Canada from Delhi using a passport in his own name. Likewise, when he was allegedly detained by the police, he was released upon payment of a small bribe and without any charges having been brought. There is no information to suggest that the central authorities in India would have any interest in the complainant. The Division also took note of the fact that the complainant had lived in Jalandhar for several months without incident prior to his departure from India; and that he had made inconsistent claims about his mother’s whereabouts. Finally, the Division also considered that, even if his allegations were accepted as true, the complainant had an internal flight alternative. 4.9 Likewise, the complainant has provided no relevant evidence substantiating his father’s disappearance. He also stated that, because of the torture inflicted on him while in detention, he had been hospitalized for two days in 2009 and treated at his home for another 10 days. However, the only evidence that he provided in support of that assertion was a medical certificate post-dated from 2014. In addition, his description of his injuries was limited to broad assertions, such as “serious internal injuries” and “serious external injuries”, and he was unable to describe his injuries in any detail. The complainant also claims that his family has continued to be harassed by police since his departure from India and that his uncle was killed by the police in March 2013. Nevertheless, those assertions are not supported by relevant documentary evidence. Moreover, despite the public nature of his 4 The State party refers to Say v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FC 739, decision upheld on appeal; Say v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2005 FCA 422, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed on 27 April 2006; Chea Say and Vouch Lang Song v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2006 CanLII 13748 (SCC); and Nalliah v. Canada (Solicitor General), 2004 FC 1649, para. 13. 5