CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 is ineffective. While it is discretionary from a technical point of view, the ministerial decision must nevertheless be based on certain criteria and procedures. The discretion must be exercised in conformity with the law, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the international obligations of Canada. An H&C application can be based on the risk of torture in the country of return, and ministerial decisions can be reviewed by the Federal Court. A negative decision by the Federal Court can be appealed before the Federal Court of Appeal if the case raises an issue of general importance. A decision by the Federal Court of Appeal can be appealed before the Supreme Court of Canada. 4.7 The State party contends that the complaint is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible. The complainant’s allegations and the evidence he has provided to the Committee are essentially the same as those submitted to the Canadian authorities. The complainant was interviewed by the PRRA officer, who was able to make a personal assessment of his credibility. The officer’s conclusions concerning the risk in the event of return are appropriate and well-founded. The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which it is not its role to re-evaluate findings of fact and credibility made by competent national authorities, unless it emerges that the assessment was arbitrary or constituted a denial of justice. The documents submitted by the complainant to the Committee do not show that the conclusions of the PRRA officer were tainted by such irregularities. Therefore, there are no grounds on which the Committee could consider it necessary to re-evaluate the findings of the Canadian authorities concerning the facts and the complainant’s credibility. 4.8 The State party submits that the complainant lacks credibility for the following reasons: (a) his account is contradictory as to the date on which he arrived in Canada for the first time. On different occasions, he has claimed to have arrived in September 2002, January 2003 and April 2003; (b) he also provided contradictory information as to his identity, in particular his family name and his date of birth; (c) he provided false information concerning, inter alia, his father’s political activities, persecution, arrest, torture and death; (d) he provided false information to the United States immigration authorities, which led to his arrest and sentencing to 30 months’ imprisonment; (e) upon release, he was deported to Canada, where he initially denied having requested asylum in the past; and (f) during the PRRA procedure, he provided contradictory information concerning the treatment he allegedly suffered in 2002 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In particular, he was unable to give details concerning the prison in which he had been detained. He failed to clarify whether he had been released or whether he had escaped. He contradicted himself with regard to the date on which he regained his freedom and the time spent in Lumumbashi following his detention. He also provided contradictory information to the PRRA officer concerning his father’s return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2006–2007. Following the interview, the PRRA officer asked the complainant to provide certain documents. However, the documents he provided were deemed unsatisfactory. For example, the photocopy of his father’s passport was illegible and did not show the dates of his stay in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the complainant provided a copy of a letter from UDPS, not the original requested by the officer. 4.9 With regard to the medical certificate provided by the complainant as evidence of the torture suffered in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the PRRA officer found it inconclusive. He notes that there is little evidence of torture or abuse. The doctor indicates that the complainant shows symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder but draws no definitive conclusion. It was the complainant himself who claimed to have had suicidal and depressive thoughts. The doctor does not explain what tests were used to diagnose posttraumatic stress disorder. While it is stated that the complainant has injuries consistent with his allegations, there is no evidence that these injuries were inflicted during his detention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The doctor does not explain the link between the complainant’s angina and high blood pressure and his alleged torture. In view of the above, GE.12-43835 7