CAT/C/40/D/293/2006 page 4 2.6 On 19 November 2004, the complainant submitted a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application, which was rejected on 7 December 2004. He and his family also submitted a Humanitarian and Compassionate application (H&C) for an immigration visa in March 2005, which was rejected on 4 July 2005. They were therefore requested to present themselves for departure on 5 July 2005, but their removal was postponed in order to allow the complainant to continue medical treatment in Canada. 2.7 In February 2005, based on his health problems, the complainant and his family filed an application for residence on humanitarian grounds, in order to be able to remain in Canada, since the complainant could not receive the necessary medical care in Mexico. This application was rejected on 4 July 2005. 2.8 The complainant submits that his daughter-in-law, Mrs. V.V.J., who had remained in Mexico and had lived in his home even since her husband had left for Canada following the complainant’s accident, on numerous occasions between August and November 2004, had been visited by unknown persons who were asking for him and had threatened her with a revolver. She had also been threatened over the telephone. Some of the unknown persons had been wearing coats that were part of the PGJ (Procuraduría General de la Justicia) uniform, and travelled in a car without registration plates. On one occasion the house was broken into. It was because of this that she had left Mexico on 2 December 2004 to apply for refugee status in Canada. On 21 December 2005 she was granted refugee status under the Geneva Convention, even though her case was based entirely on that of the complainant. 2.9 The complainant sent the Committee a copy of the decision in which the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada granted Mrs. V.V.J.’s asylum request. The Board took into account the following aspects: “the claimant testified that she tried on two occasions to telephone the police but received no reply and no assistance. The Tribunal gives the claimant the benefit of the doubt regarding this aspect, given that she is a young woman residing alone, who was trying to live her life with no support and minimal resources at her disposal. Thus, in view of all of the evidence submitted to the Tribunal, and the Chairperson’s Guidelines on Women Refugee Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution, the panel considers that the claimant has met the burden of proof and gives her the benefit of the doubt on certain credibility issues that have been raised.” 2.10 In the light of that decision, the complainant submitted new visa exemption applications on humanitarian grounds and a PRRA, which were also rejected on 19 May 2006. Prior to that, on 21 April 2006, the complainants had reported to the Canada border services agency, where they had been told to report to Trudeau Airport on 20 May 2006 in order to leave Canada. On 27 November 2006, the Federal Court rejected an application for a judicial review of the previous PRRA decision. The complaint 3. The complainants allege that if they were returned to Mexico they would be in grave danger of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment, or even death, in violation of article 3 of the Convention.