CAT/C/19/D/57/1996 page 6 Comments by the author 6.1 Counsel for the author alleges that the State party has failed to evaluate the author's arguments in an objective and equitable way. According to counsel, international non-governmental organizations have confirmed the existence of arbitrary detention, ill-treatment of prisoners and regular use of torture since 1993. 6.2 Counsel submits that the author would be automatically imprisoned, retried and tortured under the Criminal Code of the Republic of China. Furthermore, since China is not a party to article 22 of the Convention, the author would not have recourse to the Committee as a means of obtaining the necessary protection. Counsel refers to the case of a Chinese national, expelled by the United States after refusal of his application for political refugee status, who was fined on his return to China. 6.3 Counsel recalls that, in its observations on the occasion of the presentation of the report of China, the Committee had expressed concern about: (i) the failure to incorporate the crime of torture into the domestic legal system, in terms consistent with the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention; (ii) the assertions, drawn to the attention of the Committee by non-governmental organizations, that torture occurred in China in police stations and prisons; and (iii) the failure to provide access to legal counsel to persons at the earliest time of their contact with the authorities and the allegations by some non-governmental organizations that incommunicado detention is still prevalent in China. Counsel concludes that the author has thus sufficient reason to fear for his life if he is returned to China. She maintains that, even if the facts submitted to the Committee may give rise to certain doubts, the Committee's role is to ensure the safety of the individual concerned. 6.4 Counsel submits that, for the following reasons, the author would be personally at risk if he were returned to China: (i) the author had been deported from Viet Nam to China when he was three years old; (ii) the Chinese authorities are obviously aware of the reasons why Canada has requested a travel document in the author's name; (iii) the Chinese authorities are also aware of the author's conviction; (iv) the author will be turned over directly to the Chinese authorities; (v) under article 7 of the Chinese Criminal Code, another sentence will be imposed; (vi) article 150 of the Code states that the sentence may include the death penalty; and (vii) torture is common practice in police stations and prisons in China. 6.5 Counsel argues that the author's deportation under current circumstances would violate article 3 of the Convention and that its foreseeable consequence would be to place him in genuine danger of torture. 6.6 In a subsequent letter, counsel denies that the author is a danger to the public and argues that the Canadian authorities' decision on that matter was arbitrary, unreasonable and not supported by any evidence. She also maintains that the Ministry of Immigration did not give the author's file completely independent consideration and that the legislation applied was very recent.