CAT/C/50/D/392/2009 treatment, since 2005. The report makes no mention of the secret concentration camps that the complainant claims exist.2 In the Special Rapporteur’s 2009 follow-up report on the action taken pursuant to the recommendations he had made in the report on his 2008 mission to Togo, he takes note with satisfaction of the measures introduced for that purpose.3 4.9 The State party does not dispute the veracity of NGO reports of human rights violations during the April 2005 elections. Publicly available documents do not, however, indicate that there has been any repetition of those events since then. In the Special Rapporteur’s 2009 report, he says that the October 2007 elections went smoothly. Moreover, a thorough review of the documentary evidence indicates that the position of political dissidents has been improving. In August 2006, the Government and all opposition parties signed a broad political agreement under which the opposition’s right to take part in public affairs is recognized. The evidence submitted by the complainant therefore does not provide grounds for concluding that he would run the risk of being arrested in Togo simply because he is a member of the UFC party and is an active political dissident. And even if he were to be at risk of arrest, that would not mean that there was reason to believe that the complainant would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture. 4.10 According to the State party, independent, impartial Canadian experts have analysed the complainant’s claims in accordance with the applicable laws and the principle of equity. In the absence of proof of an obvious error, abuse of process, bad faith, obvious bias or serious procedural irregularities, the Committee should not substitute its own findings for those of the Canadian authorities. It is the duty of the courts of States parties to the Convention to assess the facts, weigh the evidence and, in particular, to evaluate the credibility of the parties in each case. In the State party’s view, the complainant has not demonstrated that the Canadian authorities’ decisions are flawed in any way that would provide grounds for the Committee to overrule them. 4.11 The State party submits, as an additional argument to its observations on admissibility and on the same grounds, that the complaint should be dismissed on the merits as it fails to demonstrate any violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 The complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s submission on 21 April 2010. With respect to the State party’s argument that the complainant should have applied for a visa exemption and permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds, he refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence in communication No. 133/199 (Falcon Ríos v. Canada), in which the Committee decided that this kind of appeal is not a remedy that must be exhausted in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. 5.2 With regard to the evidence relating to personal risk, the complainant reaffirms his earlier claims. He contends that there is still a risk of torture and appends newspaper articles concerning protests and arrests of members of the opposition in Togo following the presidential elections of 4 March 2010. He states that he has demonstrated that the Canadian authorities who considered his case were not impartial and that his case has been flawed by obvious error, abuse of process, bad faith, bias and serious procedural irregularities. 2 3 GE.13-45411 A/HRC/7/3/Add.5. A/HRC/10/44/Add.5. 7