E/CN.4/2006/7/Add.2 page 21 − The only way out of detention appears to be deportation to the country of origin; all four men currently detained argue - not without plausibility - that they would be exposed to a substantial risk of torture in case of deportation; − The evidence on which the security certificate is based is kept secret from the detainee and his lawyer, who are only provided with a summary of the information concerning them. They are thus not in a position to effectively question the allegations brought against him; − The Federal Court judge tasked with confirming the certificate has no jurisdiction to review, on the merits, whether the certificate is justified. His jurisdiction is limited to assessing the “reasonableness” of the Government’s allegations; − When the Federal Court considers that a security certificate is reasonable its decision is final and cannot be appealed, removal is ordered and the person is detained pending execution of the order “without the necessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing”. The person named in it may not apply for refugee protection. On the other hand, if the Federal Court considers the security certificate not reasonable, the two Ministers can at any time issue a new certificate. According to the information gathered by the Working Group, such new certificate can be based on a new interpretation of the same facts underlying the quashed certificate. 85. One of the most troubling aspects of the security certificate process is the delay with which non-citizens under a security certificate can challenge their detention. Article 9, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires that “anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful” (emphasis added). The case of Mahmoud Jaballah, one of the four men currently detained under security certificates, illustrates how the process violates this fundamental principle. Mr. Jaballah has been detained without criminal charges for five years and been given the chance to challenge his detention only once.5 86. The case of Adil Charkaoui also illustrates the concerns raised by the security certificate procedure. Mr. Charkaoui, a permanent resident of Canada, was detained under a security certificate for more than 20 months. He was released in February 2005, but is subject to very strict terms and conditions that disrupt the life of his entire family. He asked to be indicted and put on trial in order to enjoy a fair hearing, but the authorities deny him this right. V. CONCLUSIONS 87. The Working Group visited Canada at the invitation of the Government and enjoyed the fullest cooperation of the authorities in all respects. The Working Group reiterates its gratitude to the Government and all other authorities who contributed to enabling the Working Group to carry out its mandate.