United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr... Page 5 of 6 was, in fact, a "notice to appear" is unreliable, since the State party relies on information obtained during a telephone interview with an unnamed lawyer in Tehran, who, apparently, did not see the summons. The petitioner further asks the Committee to consider what treatment he will receive should the Iranian authorities discover that he was convicted of sexual assault in Canada. 5.5 With regard to the general situation of human rights in Iran, the petitioner points to reports by Human Rights Watch in 1999 and the United States Department of State in 2000 and submits that while there have been some potentially positive developments, little has changed to date and human rights conditions may have actually deteriorated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Examination of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party considers the communication inadmissible for lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In its risk opinion of 11 August 2000, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration denied a risk of torture if the petitioner is removed to Iran; the Committee notes that the same governmental body would determine a decision on a humanitarian or compassionate application or a minister's permit. The Committee notes further that the petitioner's applications for leave and judicial review of the decisions to remove him to Iran and that he constitutes a danger to the public had been denied by the Federal Court; the same could would be responsible for reviewing a decision on a humanitarian or compassionate application or a minister's permit. Therefore, the Committee finds that, in the petitioner's situation, a humanitarian or compassionate application under section 114 (2) of the Immigration Act or a minister's permit would not constitute a remedy likely to bring relief, which should still be exhausted for purposes of admissibility. The Committee, therefore, considers that the conditions laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have been met. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party considers the communication inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation. The Committee is of the opinion that the State party's arguments raise only substantive issues, which should be dealt with at the merits and not the admissibility stage. Since the Committee sees no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the petitioner to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate the obligation of Canada under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.2 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged victim would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Iran. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005... 26.02.2008