CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 4.12 Subsidiarily, for the same reasons, the communication should be found to be wholly without merit. Author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 On 2 January 2013, the author submitted comments on the State party’s submission on admissibility and the merits. 5.2 With respect to interim measures, the author notes that at the time the State party received the interim measures request from the Committee, on 29 August 2011 at 9.36 a.m., he was still in Canadian airspace, and thus under Canadian jurisdiction. Also, as the aircraft was scheduled to return to Toronto one hour after its arrival in Kingston, the author could have easily been returned to Canada on the same day. By failing to respect the interim measures request, the State party created a risk of irreparable harm, which constitutes a breach of its obligations under the Covenant and the Optional Protocol. By way of remedy, the author requests permission to return to Canada. 5.3 The author maintains his initial arguments, stressing that his illness, combined with the inadequacy of treatment facilities, and absence of family support in Jamaica, resulted in a risk that he would be exposed to a violation of his rights under articles 6, 7, 17 and 23 of the Covenant. He recalled, in particular, the documented evidence suggesting the need for strong and consistent professional and family support for persons suffering from schizophrenia, and the associated high risk of homelessness, indigence and suicide. 5.4 The author rejects the State party’s contention that the allegations of risk are speculative. They are logical inferences derived from evidence. He also rejects the State party’s contention that the plans arranged for his arrival in Kingston were adequate, given that the community group home normally only accommodates people for 30 days and that the author requires a lifetime supply of medication, not just for three months. While the State party’s responsibility does not extend to any and all negative events in his future, it includes those risks that were foreseeable at the time of deportation. Many of those risks have materialized and the State party should be held directly responsible for them, as it was aware of them. Below is an account of the events that the author reports took place in the wake of his deportation to Jamaica.17 5.5 Upon arrival in Kingston, he was held at the airport for several hours. Thereafter, he was finally allowed to enter Jamaica and was taken to Bellevue Hospital on 29 August 2011, where he remained for over a month. He was then discharged because there was not enough space to accommodate him. 5.6 The author was signed out of Bellevue Hospital into the care of his half-sister, B., with whom he remained for approximately one month. On 21 November 2011, he was referred to the Open Arms Shelter but was found to be ineligible because of severe mental illness. He then spent some time living with his half-brother, who sexually assaulted him while he was in his care. The author then spent approximately two months living in a hotel. In October 2011, he was violently accosted in the street by two individuals who threatened him with a cracked rum bottle and attempted to rob him. In November 2011, he was beaten by the police, arrested without a legal basis and arbitrarily detained for six days. He was denied medication while detained and did not recover his medication after his release. During his detention, he was beaten with a baton on his foot. In April 2012, he was robbed and stabbed in the hand. 17 The author refers to sworn affidavits from Dr. Wendel Abel, M.R., the author’s niece and litigation guardian, and Virginia Wilson (link to author unclear). 9