CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 decision that involves questions of law of central importance to the legal system as a whole, and outside the IRB expertise.21 4.31 As to the complainants’ application to the Federal Court for a stay of removal, the complainants alleged the same risks that had already been considered by several domestic decision makers, in decisions for which the Federal Court had already denied applications for leave to seek judicial review. The Court noted that “it is not the role of this Court in a stay motion to reweigh the evidence”.22 The Federal Court properly applied the wellestablished legal test for a stay of removal 23 and determined that the complainants had not met that test: they had not demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm if a stay was not granted. As the Federal Court held, “the same risks alleged and found not credible” by the RPD “cannot serve as a basis” for demonstrating irreparable harm in an application for a stay of removal.24 The State party maintains that Federal Court judicial review is an effective remedy. Complainant’s comments and further submissions 5.1 On 6 March 2015, the complainants submit that: they have been victims of torture and rape, that they have fled a situation of impunity and great personal risk in Punjab; that they have presented “overwhelming” evidence, which was not given any weight, without an objective reason; that the PRRA process does not provide an effective recourse to ensure respect for article 3 of the Convention; that the Federal Court does not enforce compliance with article 3 of the Convention and does not provide a clear and effective recourse to victims of torture who apply for protection from deportation; and that they have exhausted the available domestic remedies within the Canadian legal system, including for a stay of deportation, which has been denied because it was based on the same fears as those expressed previously before the IRB. 5.2 The complainants submit that the medical evidence regarding the torture they suffered was rejected essentially because: they had had spent eight days in the United States; they stated that they believe they are logged in an India-wide police database; and the fact that it is possible to obtain fraudulent documents in India. The complainants refer to the affidavits that they submitted in support of their claims that they would face risk of torture upon return25 and to the reports from human rights organizations in Punjab26 and maintain that the above evidence show ongoing danger for them. The report of the Khalra Mission Committee, in particular, states that committee had sent an investigative team to the village of the complainants, which reported ongoing police raids and harassment of family members and village councillors in search of the couple. The affidavits also refer to the judgement of the Supreme Court of India regarding the disappearance and murder of 21 22 23 24 25 26 14 The Supreme Court of Canada, whose jurisprudence on this point guides judicial review by all Canadian courts, has explained the “reasonableness” and “correctness” standards of review. See Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, para. 49. See Federal Court order dismissing the authors’ application for a stay of removal. See Canada, Federal Court of Appeal, Toth v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration) (1998), 86 N.R. 302 (To obtain a stay of removal, the applicant must establish the following three requirements: (1) there is a serious issue to be tried; (2) The applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the court refused relief; and (3) The balance of convenience favours the applicant because he will suffer the greater harm from the refusal of the stay). See Federal Court order dismissing the authors’ application for a stay of removal. See footnote 3 above. Report of the Khalra Mission Committee and letter by Brijinger Singh Sodhi of the Sikh Human Rights Group, copies submitted by the complainants.