CAT/C/39/D/297/2006 page 7 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The State party transmitted its observations on admissibility and the merits by note verbale dated 12 January 2007. The State party notes that, even though two requests for judicial review are still pending before the Federal Court, it will not at this stage challenge the admissibility of the communication for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, though it reserves the right to do so once the proceedings in the Canadian courts are concluded. 4.2 The State party maintains that the complaint should be rejected on the merits because the complainant has failed to establish that he personally would run a real and foreseeable risk of torture in India. The State party notes that the human rights situation in Punjab has improved considerably since the end of the Sikh insurrection. 4.3 The State party further argues that the delegate of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has given careful consideration to the complainant’s claims and determined that he was not in danger of being subjected to torture in India. The Committee should not substitute its own findings for those of the Minister’s delegate except in case of manifest error, abuse of process, bad faith, bias or serious procedural irregularities. In the State party’s view the complainant’s claims to the Committee call into question the delegate’s decision to reject his request for protection, and indirectly invite the Committee to conduct a judicial review of the decision. The State party recalls that the Committee’s role is to establish a violation of article 3 of the Convention, not to carry out a judicial review of the delegate’s decision. Further observations by the State party 5. On 28 February 2007 the State party informed the Committee that the complainant’s two requests for judicial review, one in respect of the decision of the Minister’s delegate rejecting his application for protection and the other in respect of the decision to enforce the removal order, had been rejected by the Federal Court of Canada on 1 February 2007. The Court had found that the applications were now moot and that there were no grounds for it to exercise its discretion to consider the cases on the merits. The Court’s judgement may be appealed in the Federal Appeal Court if the judge certifies that the matter raises a serious question of general importance. Since neither the complainant nor the Canadian Government requested certification of such a question within the time set by the Court, and since the Court itself has not certified that there is such a question, the Federal Court ruling has become enforceable. Counsel’s comments on the State party’s observations 6.1 On 6 April 2007 counsel contested the State party’s observations and communicated to the Committee certain new facts that had arisen since the complaint was submitted to the Committee. New facts arising since submission of the complaint to the Committee 6.2 Counsel states that an application for judicial review of the decision to enforce the removal of the complainant had been made on 11 June 2006. Another application, for judicial review of the 11 May decision on protection, was still pending before the Federal Court at the time.