CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 question his father’s UDPS membership and the nature of the problems encountered by the latter during his stay in the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 2006 to 2007. However, the complainant’s father was never interviewed, even though he was ready to testify. The PRRA officer also refused to accept a written statement on the grounds that the father’s testimony would be biased. The complainant therefore submitted a letter of support from a UDPS member, which was dismissed by the officer as coming from a biased witness, a claim the complainant contests. The complainant points out that the decision by the United States authorities to grant him protection under the Convention against Torture was based primarily on the risk of torture linked to his father’s opposition political views. Whether the latter is still a UDPS member is not decisive, as he has been one in the past; the complainant has the same family name; and persons suspected of political opposition are systematically targeted by the authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which the PRRA officer does not dispute. 2.9 As to the internal flight alternative, according to the complainant, the PRRA officer had no grounds to conclude that he could relocate to Kinshasa despite being a Luba from Kasaï and despite the violence suffered by this ethnic group. 2.10 The PRRA officer calls into question the complainant’s credibility as to the events he allegedly experienced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002 but does so by focusing on minor inconsistencies and by arbitrarily dismissing the evidence that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, which can considerably impair his recollection of events. The officer also fails to take into consideration the letter from the complainant’s Congolese lawyer, who was involved in the efforts to secure his release in 2002 and who has confirmed the complainant’s allegations. The officer considers the lawyer to be biased but does not advance any reasons for this conclusion. The evidence that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder was also dismissed without giving any reason for that decision, despite the fact that the medical certificate was issued by a doctor specialized in examining torture victims. 2.11 On 6 May 2008, the complainant received a notification that his removal was scheduled for 6 June 2008. On 22 May 2008, he filed a motion for a stay of removal with the Federal Court of Canada. His motion was rejected on 2 June 2008. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that, because of his criminal record in the United States, his detention and subsequent escape from prison in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002, and his father’s political opinions, he would risk being arrested and tortured again should he be returned to his country of origin. The fact that he is a Luba (Baluba) from Kasaï would also put him at risk, as this ethnic group is linked to the UDPS opposition party. The author claims that the Canadian authorities are aware of this risk, as there is a moratorium on the deportation of Congolese nationals. However, exceptions are made to this moratorium, in particular for persons who are inadmissible to Canada because of past criminal activity, under section 230 (3) (c) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. This exception constitutes discrimination based on his criminal record and is thus a violation of the right to equal treatment before the law. The complainant invokes the Committee’s decision in communication No. 297/2006, Sogi v. Canada, in which the Committee recalled that article 3 affords absolute protection to anyone in the territory of a State party, regardless of the person’s character or the danger which that person may pose to society. Therefore, the State party cannot invoke the applicant’s criminal record to justify derogating from the moratorium to return him to a country where he is at risk of being tortured. 3.2 The author also cites documents concerning the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in particular regarding the practice of arbitrary GE.12-43835 5