CAT/C/50/D/392/2009 taking reprisals outside their territory against people who had fled Togo. That was why he decided to leave. On 23 July 2006, armed with a false French passport, he left for France, where he made a stopover before going on to Canada. On 25 July 2006, he arrived in Canada and went to the offices of Citizenship and Immigration Canada in Montreal, where he applied for asylum. 2.7 On 20 June 2007, the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) concluded that the complainant was neither a refugee under the 1951 Convention nor a person in need of protection, as he had been found to be lacking in credibility and the Board did not believe that he was involved in the UFC party. On 17 December 2007, leave to apply for judicial review of this decision was denied by the Federal Court of Canada, with no reason being given. On 10 April 2008, as he was subject to a removal order, he was summoned by the Canada Border Services Agency in order to make arrangements for his departure. On that occasion, he was offered the opportunity to file a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application, which he submitted on 23 April 2008. 2.8 On 7 April 2009, the PRRA application was rejected and the complainant was ordered to leave Canada. On 15 June 2009, he applied for leave and judicial review of this decision before the Federal Court of Canada. That application was rejected on 22 September 2009, with no reason being given. Meanwhile, an application for a stay of the removal order had been rejected by the Canada Border Services Agency and his departure date had been set for 10 July 2009. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his return to Togo would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. He states that he would not be safe in his country because of his UFC membership and he fears not only that he would be arrested again, but that he would be murdered. Owing to his dissident activities and his fight for democracy, he was detained and subjected to conditions of detention comparable with those found in concentration camps. He claims that the decision to deny his PRRA application fails to take into account the situation in Togo. He is still an active political dissident within the UFC party, which in itself is a dangerous activity in a country under military rule. His escape from the military camp and the fact that he witnessed serious human rights violations in that camp (forced labour, the burial of persons who had died from exhaustion, physical and psychological torture, summary executions, etc.) only add to the risk that he faces. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 10 February 2010, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and on the merits of the case. It maintains that the complainant’s allegations before the Committee have been thoroughly examined by the Canadian authorities, who have concluded that they are completely unfounded. The complaint provides no new evidence that might alter this conclusion. 4.2 On 11 September 2006, in support of his application for asylum, the complainant submitted a completed Personal Information Form to the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Subsequently, at a hearing during which he was accompanied by his lawyer, he was questioned at length by the Board about his political activities and his claims that he had been targeted by the Togolese Armed Forces. The Board found his responses to be unsatisfactory and full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and it gave no weight to the evidence that he had entered regarding his political affiliations. The Board rejected the complainant’s explanations as to why the Togolese authorities had not arrested him at any time between 2002 and the April 2005 elections even though he had allegedly been targeted by them because of his political activities. It concluded that the complainant was wholly lacking in credibility with respect 4 GE.13-45411