PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture danger of being tortured if deported or extradited), but only a review on procedural issues.235 b. The court’s decision was manifestly arbitrary or unjust. Such an argument might be made if a decision neglects a crucial piece of evidence. For example, in Wright v. Jamaica, a breach of the right to a fair trial was entailed in the judge’s failure, in giving instructions to a jury in a criminal trial, to remind the jury of a potential alibi for the author, who was accused of murder.236 c. The court’s decision suffers from a significant procedural defect, such as the participation in the decision of a decision-maker who has clearly manifested bias against the victim.237 The CAT Committee, in considering cases under Article 3 of CAT (concerning deportation to a State where a victim faces a real risk of torture), adopts a less deferential approach. It has explicitly stated that in such cases, while it will give “considerable weight” to “findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned” (such as refugee review tribunals), it “is not bound by such findings”, and may independently assess the facts and circumstances in every case.238 The case Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria (see Section 4.2) is deemed a very illustrative example. The State party claimed that the allegations of the author were false on the basis of a domestic court’s decision upholding, upon assessment of the medical reports, that he had only suffered a “slight physical injury” and concluding that police officers had used only the necessary force in arresting the complainant.239 The CAT Committee, carrying out a free assessment of the facts and evidence provided, disagreed with the court’s finding and held that, as appeared in the medical reports, the injuries were “too great to correspond to the use of proportionate force” by the police officers, thereby declaring that the treatment inflicted upon the complainant amounted to acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment within the terms of Article 16 of the CAT.240 Unless a complaint is not registered, or is dismissed by the relevant Committee as clearly inadmissible, the State party will be given an opportunity to respond to 235 236 237 238 239 240 a local court. In many cases it will be because the actual issue is not effectively justiciable before a national court (i.e. there is no legal ground to challenge the issue in national law). See, e.g., CAT Committee, Singh v. Canada, Comm. No. 319/2007, paras. 8.8–9. See also Section 2.1.1(c)(iv). HRC, Wright v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 349/1989, para. 8.3. See, e.g., HRC, Karttunen v. Finland, Comm. No. 387/1989, paras. 7.1–7.3. CAT Committee, General Comment No. 1, para. 9(a) and 9(b). See also, e.g., CAT Committee, Singh v. Canada, Comm. No. 319/2007, para. 8.3; CAT Committee, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, Comm. No. 322/2007, para. 9.4. CAT Committee, Keremedchiev v. Bulgaria, Comm. No. 257/2004, para. 9.2. Ibid., para. 9.3. 83