would face a substantial risk of torture if removed to Iran. It submitted that, it is for the national courts of the States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case. It submitted that the reference made by the Ministerial Delegate that the risk that the complainant could represent for the Canadian public outweighed the risk that he would face in Iran was meant only as an alternative argument. The Ministerial Delegate’s primary conclusion, and the one adopted by the Federal Court, was that the complainant would not face a substantial risk of torture. The State notes that the Committee does not refer to the complainant’s credibility, despite Canada having raised the issue in its submissions, and accepts much of the complainant’s evidence without credible and independent supporting documentation. Although the Committee suggested otherwise, the State party submits that it had questioned the allegations made with respect to the complainant’s involvement with the Canadian Intelligence and Security Service in its submissions. In addition, the letter, dated 4 April 2005, which the complainant provided to demonstrate his political involvement was provided after the State party had provided its submissions, and in any event contained no elaboration of his alleged activities. It recalls that the risk of being detained as such is not sufficient to trigger the protection of article 3. Finally, the State party reminds the Committee that this is the first time that Canada will not follow this Committee’s decision on the merits of a case. Nevertheless, its position in this matter should not be interpreted as a sign of any disrespect for the Committee’s work in monitoring implementation of the Convention. On 24 April 2006, the State party responded to the Rapporteur’s note verbale of 31 March. It reiterates the Minister’s findings and submits that the risk assessment was reaffirmed by the Federal Court on 24 March 2006. Thus, it remains the State party’s position that it complied fully with its obligations under article 3. 92