CAT/C/35/D/258/2004 Page 6 pursuant to s. 103 of the former Immigration Act, because it was believed that he posed a danger to the Canadian public. 1 He has remained in detention to date. 2.12 On 21 November 2002, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration issued a second Danger Opinion. This Opinion was quashed by an Order of the Federal Court of Canada of 8 July 2003. 2.13 On 8 March 2004, the Minister issued a third Danger Opinion, which was upheld after the complainant filed an Application for Judicial Review. This opinion indicates that the complainant had been convicted of the following offences: Theft under $ 5000 in December 1995, for which he was fined $100; assault of his wife, on 12 July 1995, for which he was sentenced to four days in prison and one year probation; aggravated assault, on 14 January 1997, for which he was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. The Opinio n acknowledged a Correctional Services of Canada Detention Review report dated 18 October 2001 and stated: “This report also indicates that the risk that Mr. D. poses to the general population is low but rises to moderate if he is in a ‘conflicted’ domestic relationship.” 2.14 Regarding the risk of torture the Minister states the following: “I cannot, however, disregard the country conditions present in Iran at this time when considering whether or not a person who has been found to be a Convention refugee may be “refouled”. I also cannot ignore the material prepared by the Immigration and Refugee Board concerning the lack of force of the monarchist movement in Iran at this time. While there is no doubt in my mind that the human rights situation in Iran is precarious, it is my opinion that Mr. D. would be of limited interest to Iranian authorities due to his former membership in this organization; though I do acknowledge that he claims that he is still a supporter of this movement. He left Iran some 17 years ago and was imprisoned 21 years ago. (…) In the event that I am in error and Mr. D. would be subjected to torture, death or to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, I am guided by the principles expressed by the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of Suresh. In Suresh, the Supreme Court noted: (…) ‘We do not exclude the possibility that in exceptional circumstances, deportation to face torture might be justified’”. 2.15 The complainant indicates that the Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) is the main agency to make determinations in regard to the future risk of offenders if they were to be released to society. A report completed by a CSC parole officer is one of the most objective tools available to the CSC for determining if the subject of the report will pose any danger to the public if he was to be released. The reporting procedure governing risk assessment is based on file materials, psychological assessments, program performances, etc. The complainant report concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that he was likely to commit an offence resulting in serious harm prior to the expiration of his sentence according to the law. 2.16 The complainant also sent to the Committee copies of two psychological assessment reports according to which he represented a low risk to the general public and a moderate risk in the context of a spousal relationship. 1 At that time, a valid Danger Opinion was not yet in place, the first Danger Opinion having already been quashed.