In weighing up evidential merits, the authorities and a court have to be satisfied that the applicant has produced a sufficient body of evidence to substantiate his or her claim that, if expelled, he or she will be exposed to a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. As such it is incumbent on persons who allege that their expulsion would amount to a breach of the protection against torture to demonstrate, to the greatest extent practically possible, material and information allowing the authorities and a court to assess the risk that a removal may entail. Such information can include country reports and publications compiled primarily by governments and international NGOs, as well as supplementary (and complementary) witness statements.398 Failure on the part of the authorities to investigate adequately allegations and to scrutinize the merits of a claim may in and of itself amount to a violation of the obligation to protect against torture. Interim measures Reflecting the importance given to the protection against torture, inhuman and degrading treatment under international human rights law and the irreversible nature of the potential damage done, where a state permits the right of individual petition under relevant UN human rights treaties, such as the ICCPR or CAT, an individual or a group of individuals at risk of “imminent” deportation to a country where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an identifiable risk of torture or other ill-treatment exists can petition either the HRC or the Committee against Torture invoking a risk of deportation in breach of the absolute prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment. Either committee may then request the state party concerned to take interim measures, i.e., not to expel the author of the communication while the matter is under consideration. In Brada, the Committee against Torture found that: The State party’s action in expelling the complainant in the face of the Committee’s request for interim measures nullified the effective exercise of the right to complaint conferred by article 22, and has rendered the Committee’s final decision on the merits futile and devoid of object. The Committee thus concludes that in expelling the complainant in the circumstances that it did the State party breached its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. 399 In cases where the “deporting” country is a state party to the ECHR, applicants can seek interim measures such as a stay of deportation through application to the European Court of Human Rights. The jurisprudence on this point has been substantially strengthened by the re- 398 ECtHR, Said v. The Netherlands, Application no. 2345/02, 5 July 2005, paras. 27-35 and 51. 399 CAT, Brada v. France, doc. CAT/C/34/D/195/2002, 24 May 2005, para. 13.4. The case concerned the deportation of an Algerian citizen from France. On the importance of procedural guarantees against expulsions, see also HRC, Mansour Ahani v. Canada, doc. CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002, 29 March 2004, para 10.8 (“The Committee observes further that article 13 is in principle applicable to the Minister’s decision on risk of harm, being a decision leading to expulsion. Given that the domestic procedure allowed the author to provide -limited- reasons against his expulsion and to receive a degree of review of his case, it would be inappropriate for the Committee to accept that, in the proceedings before it, ‘compelling reasons of national security’ existed to exempt the State party from its obligation under that article to provide the procedural protections in question. In the Committee’s view, the failure of the State party to provide him with the procedural protections afforded to the plaintiff in Suresh on the basis that he had not made out a risk of harm did not satisfy the obligation in article 13 to allow the author to submit reasons against his removal in the light of the administrative authorities’ case against him and to have such complete submissions reviewed by a competent authority, entailing a possibility to comment on the material presented to that authority. The Committee thus finds a violation of article 13 of the Covenant, in conjunction with article 7”). Countering Terrorism, Protecting Human Rights 139