CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 justification. He was denied medication during his detention, and was beaten on his foot with a baton. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 29 February 2012, the State party submitted observations on admissibility and the merits. It recalls that the author was reported inadmissible to Canada under section 44 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the ground of serious criminality, in particular, his June 2005 conviction for assault with a weapon. 10 The Immigration and Refugee Board accordingly issued a deportation order against the author and advised him of his right to appeal. The author’s appeal before the Immigration Appeal Division of the Board was heard on 23 January 2008. The author did not contest the validity of the removal order against him but, rather, limited his submissions to persuading the Division to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under section 67 (1) (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which permits an appeal if “sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations warrant special relief in light of all the circumstances of the case”. 4.2 According to the State party, the author’s claim under article 2 (3) of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible, as this provision cannot by itself and standing alone give rise to a claim.11 Subsidiarily, it contends that this claim should be declared inadmissible for non-substantiation, as the author has had access to a number of domestic remedies, including judicial review, to vindicate his rights. 4.3 The State party notes that the author’s allegations are the same as those presented before domestic instances and recalls that it is not the role of the Committee to evaluate facts and evidence unless it is manifest that the domestic authorities’ evaluation was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 12 The material submitted by the author cannot support a finding that the Canadian decisions suffered from any such defects. 4.4 With regard to allegations under articles 6 (1) and 7, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims for purposes of admissibility. His allegations are based on a number of hypothetical events that may or may not occur. 4.5 According to the State party, these allegations are mere speculation and the Committee should find them inadmissible or devoid of merits. 13 It is for the author to establish that there are substantial grounds for believing that he is at “real risk of irreparable harm”,14 which should be interpreted as meaning more than mere conjecture. The State party’s responsibility can only extend to extraterritorial violations of the author’s rights if the violation was a “necessary and foreseeable consequence” of the deportation, on the basis of what Canada knew or should have known at the time of deportation. 15 Contrary to the worst case scenario presented by the author, it is just as plausible, or just as likely, that 10 11 12 13 14 15 Under section 36 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of serious criminality for, inter alia, having been convicted in Canada of an offence under an Act of Parliament punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of at least 10 years, or of an offence under an Act of Parliament for which a term of imprisonment of more than 6 months has been imposed. The State party refers, inter alia, to communication No. 1551/2007, Tarlue v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 27 March 2009, para. 7.3. Ibid., para. 7.4. The State party refers, inter alia, to communication No. 1492/2006, Van der Plaat v. New Zealand, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008, paras. 6.3 and 6.4. See Communication No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 8.3. See Munaf v. Romania, communication No. 1539/2006, Views adopted on 30 July 2009, paras. 14.2– 14.5. 7