CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 legally stay the removal of the applicant. Appeals against negative PRRA decisions (applications to the Federal Court for leave and judicial review and appeals before the Federal Court of Appeal) also fail to constitute effective remedies, as none of these procedures legally stays the removal of the applicant. In the present case, the PRRA assessment of the facts and evidence is manifestly arbitrary and/or amounts to a denial of justice. 5.4 The complainant argues that his claims are sufficiently substantiated. His father is a long-standing political opponent who is known and recognized in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a co-founder of UDPS, the main opposition party. Contrary to the State party’s assertions, the complainant’s identity has never been questioned by the Canadian authorities, nor has the family relationship between the complainant and his father ever been contested. Furthermore, the complainant’s identity and his relationship to his father are clearly established by the complainant’s passport and birth certificate. The complainant cites the United States Department of State Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2007 to show that political opponents, whether actual or only perceived as such, are routinely arrested and tortured in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and that family members of suspected or wanted persons are at risk of being arrested, detained and tortured. 5.5 The State party’s assertions concerning the complainant’s lack of credibility are irrelevant and should be dismissed. The Canadian courts have decided on several occasions that an asylum seeker’s lack of credibility does not rule out the possibility of that person being a Convention refugee. Likewise, the complainant’s credibility with regard to certain allegations is of little importance, as he could still objectively and subjectively be at risk of being tortured if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. State party’s observations on the merits 6.1 On 6 February 2009, the State party submitted observations on the merits of the complaint. At the same time, it reiterated that the complaint should be declared inadmissible. 6.2 The complainant attempts to justify his failure to pursue his asylum application by citing his psychological condition following the treatment to which he was allegedly subjected in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and his need to join his family in the United States. This explanation is not valid because he has failed to provide medical or other evidence in support of his allegations. The only medical certificate that he has provided was issued in 2005 and was inconclusive, as has already been stated. Psychological stress is not unusual among asylum seekers. This cannot, however, absolve the complainant of his obligation to pursue his application, especially since he was represented by a lawyer. He should thus have been aware of the consequences of failing to do so. In addition, the State party rejects the complainant’s argument concerning the judicial review of the discontinuance of the proceedings and maintains that this is an effective remedy. The State party confirms that the complainant filed an H&C application and emphasizes that this remedy must be exhausted. 6.3 The State party reiterates that the complainant’s claims are manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible. As for the merits, he has failed to demonstrate that there are sufficient grounds for believing that he would be subjected to torture if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the reasons listed below. 6.4 The complainant provided contradictory information concerning his detention and the ill-treatment experienced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002. As regards the length of his detention, he declared on different occasions that it had lasted three, four and nine months. With regard to communication with his co-detainees, he first stated that they could not speak French. When he was told that French was an official language in the GE.12-43835 9