if all the contradictions in his story were overlooked and his evidence were regarded as credible, the fact that he allegedly fears mistreatment by the police if returned to India, and documentary evidence shows that at the present time this type of abuse is only directed against high profile militants. As the author is not a high profile militant, he is not someone who is likely to be targeted by the police. well as the right to make a humanitarian and compassionate application. 4.11 As to the author’s general claims relating to the scope of judicial review by the Federal Court and the PRRA procedures, the State party notes that it is not within the scope of the Committee to evaluate the Canadian system in general, but only to examine whether in the present case Canada complied with its obligations under the Covenant. In any event, there are previous decisions of international tribunals, including this Committee, which considered the impugned processes to be effective remedies.6 While the Committee against Torture recently questioned whether the PRRA process could be effective in the case of one complainant,7 due to its assumption that the risk assessment would be limited to new evidence in that case, in the current case, the PRRA officer considered all of the submissions and evidence presented by the author, including new evidence as well as that previously submitted to the Board, in her assessment of the risk he might face upon return. 4.9 As to the claims under articles 2, 13 and 14, the State party submits that these claims are inadmissible on the grounds of incompatibility with the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. It invokes the Committee’s jurisprudence to demonstrate that article 2 does not recognize an independent right to a remedy but arises only after a violation of a Covenant right has been established. In the alternative, the Covenant rights alleged to have been violated therein are rights protected in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is argued that article 13 does not apply to the author, as he was determined not to be at risk in India, is subject to a lawful removal order and is not thus “lawfully in the territory” in Canada. The State party invokes the Committee’s general comment 15 and its finding in Maroufidou v. Sweden, 4 in which article 13 is considered to regulate only the procedure and not the substantive grounds for expulsion, and its purpose is to prevent arbitrary expulsions. The author has not established that the proceedings leading to the removal order against him were not in accordance with lawful procedures, or that the Canadian Government abused its power. 4.12 If the Committee were to find the communication admissible, the State party requests the Committee to find the case without merit. Author’s comments 5.1 On 20 March and 3 September 2005, the author commented on the State party’s submission. He sets out the historical situation in the Punjab from the 1980s onwards in great detail to demonstrate that the author would be at risk of torture if returned there. On the alleged contradictions in his story, the author submits that it is not unusual that his story might resemble the stories of other Sikh truck drivers, as there is a high number of Sikhs in the trucking industry and many of them have been detained and tortured for giving rides to militants, or because of suspicion that they were carrying 4.10 The State party submits that refugee and protection determination proceedings do not fall within the scope of article 14. They are in the nature of public law, the fairness of which is guaranteed by article 13. 5 In the alternative, if the immigration proceedings are considered to be the subject of article 14, the State party argues that they satisfy the guarantees contained therein. The author’s case was heard by the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, an independent tribunal. He knew the case he had to meet, was represented by counsel, and had a full opportunity to participate, including testifying orally and making written submissions. He had access to judicial review, as 6 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of American States, Report on the Situation of Human Rights of Asylum Seekers within the Canadian refugee determination system (2000). Human Rights Committee Views: Abu v. Canada, communication No. 654/1995, Views adopted on 18 July 1997; Badu v. Canada, communication No. 603/1994, Views adopted on 18 July 1997, Nartey v. Canada, communication No. 604/1994, Views adopted on 18 July 1997. Committee against Torture decisions: P.S.S. v. Canada, communication No. 66/1997, Views adopted on 13 November 1998; P.S. v. Canada, communication No. 86/1997, Views adopted on 18 November 1999; R.K. v. Canada, communication No. 42/1996, Views adopted on 20 November 1997; L.O. v. Canada, communication No. 95/1997, Views adopted on 19 May 2000; M.A. v. Canada, communication No. 22/1995, Views adopted on 3 May 1995. European Court of Human Rights: Vilvarajah and Others v. United Kingdom, 14 E.H.R.R- 218 (1991), para. 126. 7 See Falcon Rios v. Canada, communication No. 133/1999, Views adopted on 23 November 2004. and his home village does not amount to torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 4 Communication No. 58/1979, Views adopted on 9 April 1981. 5 In this regard, it refers to Y.L. v. Canada, communication No. 112/1981 (1986), decision adopted on 8 April 1986, V.M.R.B. v. Canada, communication No. 236/1987, decision adopted on 18 July 1988, and Ahani v. Canada, communication No. 1051/2002, Views adopted on 29 March 2004. 18