CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 recognized in the decision on his application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.20 When the author takes his medication, his behaviour tends to be stable and predictable. Thus, it is illogical to consider his criminality in isolation from his mental illness. There is good reason to believe that if he were permitted to not live in detention, with access to medication and family support, his illness would generally remain manageable. 5.13 The sentences received by the author were very short and reflect the judges’ view that he did not represent a danger to the Canadian public. In 1984, he was given a sentence of five days. Since then, although he served many more days in pre-sentence custody, he has never been sentenced to more than one day in jail, despite being convicted of offences that appear to be serious. Also, the judges consistently gave the author sentences to be served in the community, which suggests that he was not considered to be dangerous. 5.14 The decision to interfere with the author’s right to a family was arbitrary. The 2008 decision to reject his application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds relied heavily on the author’s stated relationship with his father in Jamaica, who passed away in 2009. The decision was also largely based on speculation that the author would not manage his illness effectively under the supervision of his niece, and assumed that his family in Canada would provide him with financial and other support in Jamaica. However, the author has been robbed each time he has sought to obtain money from a bank and, even with his family’s support, he is homeless. The author concludes that the 2008 decision was arbitrary and that his removal breached articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant. 5.15 By way of remedy, the author requests financial compensation for the mistreatment suffered as a consequence of his deportation. He also requests that the State party grant him a residence permit. State party’s additional observations 6.1 On 19 August 2013, the State party submitted additional observations in response to the author’s comments of 2 January 2013. 6.2 Regarding interim measures, the State party submits that: (a) it is unrealistic to expect that, within a few minutes of receipt of a non-binding request for interim measures, Canadian officials should have ordered the plane to return to Toronto; (b) once the plane landed in Kingston, the State party had no jurisdiction over the author, a Jamaican national on Jamaican territory; and (c) although the implications of the deportation, in the light of the request for interim measures, were considered, as the State party concluded that it was not appropriate for the Committee to issue interim measures in that case, no attempt was made to bring the author back to Canada. 6.3 With respect to the new, post-deportation evidence provided by the author, the State party submits that the relevant time for the Committee’s assessment of the case is at the time of removal.21 It could not be foreseen that the author would be sexually abused, that the police would not return his medication upon his release from detention or that the community group home would close. Even if all the alleged events are true, the State party cannot be considered responsible for them, as there is no causal connection between the removal and the subsequent events. Even if that connection is said to exist, which the State party denies, it is too indirect and remote to trigger any violation of the Covenant by Canada. 20 21 The decision, dated 22 April 2010, included the following statement: “Mr. G.’s criminal offences appear to be tied to his mental health – specifically whether or not he takes the medicine required to treat his mental illness”. The State party refers to Munaf v. Romania (note 15 above), paras. 14.4–14.5. 11