CAT/C/56/D/536/2013 travel to Canada, this time to British Columbia on 20 October 2011, to appear as a speaker at an economic forum. In anticipation of Mr. Bush ’s October 2011 visit, the complainants’ counsel formally called upon the Attorney General of Canada to launch a criminal investigation against Mr. Bush for his role in authorizing and overseeing his administration’s torture programme. This letter, dated 29 September 2011, was supported with an extensive draft indictment setting forth the factual and legal basis for charging Mr. Bush with torture as well as approximately 4,000 pages of evidence. It further stated that if the Attorney General refused to launch a criminal investigation against Mr. Bush, the complainants would pursue private prosecution against him. The Attorney General provided no response prior to Mr. Bush’s visit, despite a follow-up letter dated 14 October 2011. 2.11 On 18 October 2011, the complainants’ counsel attempted to file an information under section 504 of the Criminal Code before a justice of the peace in the Provinci al Court of Surrey. The information included four counts, one each for the torture of the four complainants (private prosecution). The justice of the peace refused to receive the information on the ground that Mr. Bush was not present on Canadian territory. On 20 October 2011, the counsel provided evidence to the contrary. The justice of the peace accepted the information, assigned a number to the file and scheduled a hearing for January 2012. 2.12 Almost simultaneously, the Attorney General of British Colu mbia stated that the Criminal Justice Branch of British Columbia had decided to stay the proceedings based on the assumption that the consent of the Attorney General of Canada would not be obtained in the case. However, the consent of the Attorney General of Canada was never officially sought. On 7 November 2011, nearly three weeks after Mr. Bush ’s visit, the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the federal Ministry of Justice responded to the 29 September 2011 letter to the Attorney General, confirming receipt of the letter and stating that the letter had been transmitted to the appropriate officials. No further action was taken by the authorities of the State party. The complaint 3.1 The complainants submit that the State party violated its obligat ions under the Convention, specifically those emanating from articles 5 (2), 6 (1) and 7 (1) of the Convention. 3.2 The complainants submit that they consider themselves victims of a violation of their rights by the State party, which has made a declaratio n recognizing the Committee’s competence to receive and consider communications under article 22 (1) of the Convention. The communication alleges facts that, prima facie, constitute serious violations of the Convention. The subject matter of the present co mplaint has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complainants took all steps available to them, under the circumstances of this case, to effect the State party’s compliance with its obligations under the Convention. The lack of any response by the Attorney General of Canada, the letter from the Ministerial Correspondence Unit and the direct intervention by the Attorney General of British Columbia to block the private prosecution all show that Canadian officials had no intention of pursuing this matter. No other domestic options are available in the State party, as judicial review of matters of prosecutorial discretion is generally not permitted 21 and previous attempts to obtain judicial review concerning stays of private prosecutions have failed. 22 21 22 6 Supreme Court of Canada, Krieger v. Law Society (Alberta), judgment of 10 October 2002 and R. v. Power, judgment of 14 April 1994. Court of Appeal for British Columbia, Davidson v. British Columbia (Attorney General), judgment of 11 October 2006.