CAT/C/43/D/307/2006 The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his forcible removal to Iraq would constitute a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention, as there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be tortured and even killed in present-day Iraq for having been a member of Saddam Hussein’s Republican Guards and because he is a Sunni Muslim. 3.2 The complainant contends that the human rights situation is so critical in Iraq that even ordinary people are being tortured and killed. By reference to a report by the United Nations Assistance Mission to Iraq covering the human rights situation between 1 July and 31 August 2006, he submits that torture is widespread in Iraq and that revenge killings continue to take place against those associated with the former regime. 3.3 The complainant emphasizes that he never committed any war crimes or crimes against humanity. 3.4 He submits that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that there are no further remedies available in the State party to prevent the Canadian authorities from returning him to Iraq. He explains that he did not file an application for leave to apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the PRRA decision of 21 January 2005 because his Canadian lawyer had advised him that his legal remedies were exhausted. He had four different lawyers before current counsel started to represent him. State party’s admissibility and merits observations 4.1 On 27 March 2007, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and because it was manifestly unfounded, pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) and Rule 107 (b) and (e) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Subsidiarily, it argues that the complaint is without merit. 4.2 The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence3 that it can only consider complaints that allege, in a substantiated manner, violations of rights protected by the Convention, and submits that the complainant has not substantiated his allegations on even a prima facie basis. The allegations made by him before the Committee were substantially the same as those presented to the Canadian authorities in his application for refugee protection. The State party argues that it is not the Committee’s role to weigh evidence or re-assess findings of fact made by domestic courts, tribunals or decision makers,4 unless it can be demonstrated that such findings are arbitrary or unreasonable.5 The complainant did not claim that the domestic proceedings constituted a denial of justice or were arbitrary or unfair or in any other way deficient, and the material submitted did not support a finding that the decisions of the Canadian authorities suffered from such defects. Rather, the complainant was simply dissatisfied with the outcome of his domestic proceedings and the prospect of his potential deportation from Canada. Accordingly, there were no grounds on which the Committee could consider it necessary to re-evaluate findings of fact, evidence and credibility made by domestic tribunals. 4.3 On domestic remedies, the State party submits that the complainant did not apply for leave to apply for judicial review with respect to the decision dated 28 June 1999 on his humanitarian and compassionate application and the PRRA decision dated 21 January 3 4 5 GE.09-46716 Communication No. 163/2000, H.A.S.V. and F.O.C. v. Canada, at para. 6.3; Communication No. 236/2000, A.T.A. v. Switzerland, at paras. 4.2.–4.3; Communication No. 243/2004, at paras. 4.2–4.3. The State party refers to Communication No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia, at para. 6.4. Ibid. The State party also refers to Communication No. 135/1999, S. G. v. The Netherlands, at para. 6.6; Communication No. 223/2002, S. U. A. v. Sweden, at para. 6.5. 5