CAT/C/39/D/297/2006 page 11 noted that the mere fact that the same case had come before him in earlier proceedings did not in itself give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The State party is therefore of the view that the complainant’s claims have been considered by the national courts in accordance with the law and have been rejected. 7.4 As to the claim that the decision rejecting the application for a stay was unlawful and incorrect, the State party argues that the Federal Court examined all the documentary evidence, including the fresh evidence submitted by the complainant, and declared itself not convinced that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the event of return. 7.5 As to the claim that the State party was involved in the 11 May 2006 decision by the Minister’s delegate rejecting the complainant’s request for protection, the State party notes that this allegation is based on an e-mail to a CBSA staff member. It states that CBSA had had no say in the delegate’s decision and the delegate had acted quite impartially. The State party further points out that there had not been three “preceding decisions” in the complainant’s favour but one decision, dated 2 December 2003, which had been annulled, and two torture risk assessments carried out by PRRA officials (dated 26 June 2003 and 31 August 2005). The State party notes that, while delegates should take such assessments into account, they are not bound by them and it is they who must take the final decision on the request for protection. 7.6 As to the “secret” evidence, the State party asserts that there is no connection between the risk assessment conducted by the Canadian authorities and the examination of evidence not disclosed to the complainant for security reasons. In considering the question of risk of torture, the delegate did not consider the threat to Canada’s security posed by the complainant. Her conclusion was thus not based on undisclosed evidence. The State party further points out that, under Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, in any inquiry to determine whether a foreigner is inadmissible, a judge may consider relevant information without disclosing it to the applicant if disclosure would be injurious to national security, although a summary of the information must be provided to the applicant, and that was done in this case. 7.7 The State party notes that the allegations regarding failure to apply the Committee’s interim measures and regarding the threats to return the complainant to a country where he would be at risk of torture were never raised before the domestic courts. Canada takes its international obligations under the Convention seriously, but considers that requests for interim measures are not legally binding. As a result, contrary to the Committee’s decision in Tebourski v. France,8 the State party contends that non-compliance with such a request cannot in itself entail a violation of articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. It notes that, in T.P.S. v. Canada,9 while the Committee expressed concern at the fact that the State party did not accede to its request for interim measures, it nevertheless found that Canada had not violated article 3 of the Convention in returning the complainant to India. 8 Communication No. 300/2006, Views of 1 May 2007, paras. 8.6 and 8.7. 9 Communication No. 99/1997, Views of 16 May 2000, para. 16.1.