CAT/C/23/D/86/1997 page 7 5.3 In its comments, the State party states that the author neglected his appeal options (judicial review). In fact, the remedy exists only on paper since, in practice, it hardly ever affords the relief sought. 5.4 The State party also criticizes the author for not applying for ministerial dispensation on humanitarian grounds. Such applications are, however, subject to a fee. Moreover, as the author had an expulsion order hanging over him, the application would have afforded him no protection. 5.5 The same comments apply to the application under what is known as the risk of return programme. The mechanisms established by Canada under the risk of return programme are farcical, since less than 3 per cent of cases are approved. 5.6 The author does not share the State party’s opinion that the communication does not establish substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he returned to India. He emphasizes the importance of the results of the medical examinations, which give every reason to believe that he has been subjected to torture in the past. Under the circumstances, there is more than a risk that the author would again be subjected to torture if he were obliged to return to India. 5.7 The author finds it paradoxical that over the last few years Canada has allowed in a great many other applicants facing exactly the same problems as those he describes. The only difference seems to be that the Board did not consider him credible. This finding, if that is what it can be called, relies to a very large extent on subjective judgement and does not take proper account of the objective dangers the individual concerned may face. 5.8 Lastly, the author argues that the State party has never fulfilled its obligations under the Convention. Domestic legislation does not embody the main articles and remedies set forth in the Convention. No law has been enacted to establish mechanisms to enable persons such as himself to address the competent authorities in case of need. The Immigration and Refugee Board has always argued that it is not competent to implement the Convention, merely saying that that is the prerogative of the Minister for Employment and Immigration. However, the Minister has never issued any guidelines or amended immigration law to incorporate the Convention. It is therefore impossible to say who is responsible for implementing the Convention or what steps have been taken to ensure that Canada fulfils its obligation not to deport a person who is in danger of being subjected to torture in his country of origin. Admissibility considerations 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In the case under consideration the Committee notes that the communication is not anonymous and that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. It also notes that the communication is not an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or incompatible with the provisions of the Convention.