CAT/C/21/D/66/1997 page 5 imprisonment of 10 years or more. After a hearing, where his lawyer and an interpreter were present, an adjudicator concluded that the report was well founded and issued a conditional deportation order. 4.4 His detention, which has been reviewed on a regular basis, was maintained pursuant to the Immigration Act, according to which a person can be detained if he/she is likely to pose a danger to the public or if he/she is not likely to appear when required by the immigration authorities. 4.5 On 21 June 1996 the Minister of Immigration signed the opinion that the author was a “danger to the public”. The parties agreed to review that decision. Accordingly, he was invited to make any submissions which would demonstrate that he was not a danger to the public, the element of risk of return to India or that there were compelling humanitarian and compassionate considerations which would warrant his remaining in Canada. His lawyer sent an extensive package of material and asserted that the author is not a danger to the public and that there are compelling reasons why he should be allowed to remain in Canada. 4.6 On 16 April 1997 the Minister of Immigration issued an opinion, based on the circumstances and severity of the crime for which the author was convicted, that he constitutes a “danger to the public” in Canada. As a result, the author is not eligible to have his refugee claim determined. The decision was made with due consideration for the possible risk the author might face if returned to India, a risk which was considered to be minimal. 4.7 The author, throughout his dealings with the Canadian authorities, has never showed any contrition for his past action, nor any remorse for the harm he has caused to the victims of his hijacking. He still refuses to acknowledge that he used violence and considers that he was not the aggressor. 4.8 The author filed several applications for leave to introduce a judicial review against the decisions rendered in his case. Two substantive applications remain pending. First, an application dated 30 April 1997 to review the Minister’s decision of 16 April 1997 in which the Minister determined that the applicant is a danger to the public. Secondly, an application dated 30 April 1997 to review the Immigration’s decision to remove the author to India, in which the author raised arguments under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Joint to this application the author asked the Court to order a stay of his removal pending the consideration of the application. This stay was granted on 5 May 1997. 4.9 If the author were to succeed in his applications for leave to apply for judicial review the decision of the Federal Court Trial Division could be further appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal, if the judge of the Trial Division were to certify that the case raises a serious question of general importance. A decision of the Federal Court of Appeal can be appealed, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada. The author has expressed no doubts about the effectiveness and availability of those remedies. Accordingly, this communication should be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 4.10 The State party also argues that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the author did not establish prima facie substantial