CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the PRRA officer’s conclusion as to the weight that should be given to the medical certificate is unreasonable. 4.10 Given the complainant’s lack of credibility, the PRRA officer concluded that his detention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002 and the risk to which he would be exposed in the event of his return had not been established. The officer noted that UDPS members might be arrested and ill-treated. However, according to a report of the United Kingdom Home Office, the situation had improved in 2007 compared to 2005. 4.11 The PRRA officer also noted that the United States judge had expressed doubts about the author’s credibility. The officer nevertheless made an independent assessment, concluding that the complainant had not demonstrated that he or his father was an active UDPS member or that he would be ill-treated because of his ethnic origin, especially if he lived in Kinshasa. The officer was not unaware of the difficulties that the complainant could encounter, given that he had lived most of his life in the United States. Those difficulties, however, could not be said to amount to persecution within the meaning of the Convention or to a risk to his life or a risk of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 4.12 The State party is of the view that the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been difficult for years. However, this is not sufficient to establish that the complainant would be exposed to a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture in the event of his return. The State party maintains that, even if this were the case, the complainant has failed to demonstrate that such a risk exists across the entire territory. The PRRA officer has acknowledged that the situation could be difficult for the Luba in the Katanga region, but the complainant has failed to demonstrate that such a risk exists in Kinshasa. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 13 November 2008, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility. He reiterates the reasons why he tried to enter the United States illegally on 1 May 2003 and was detained in that country, which prevented him from appearing at the hearing in Canada. Given the application for protection that he filed in the United States under the Convention against Torture, and the psychological circumstances that led him to leave Canada and seek the support of his family in the United States, he cannot be held responsible for not having pursued his asylum application in Canada at that time or for failing to apply for leave and judicial review of the decision to discontinue the proceedings. 5.2 Contrary to the State party’s assertions, the complainant did file an application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds on 29 May 2008.6 At the time of the submission of his comments, no decision had yet been taken on the application. A decision had, however, been rendered by the Federal Court on his application for leave and judicial review of the PRRA decision. That application was rejected, without any reason being given, on 14 August 2008. 5.3 The complainant contends that neither the PRRA assessment nor the H&C procedures constitute effective remedies. Decisions to grant H&C applications are not made on a legal basis, but rather ex gratia by a minister. Filing an H&C application does not 6 8 A copy of the application is contained in the file. The application states, inter alia, that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is one of eight countries for which there is a moratorium on the return of unsuccessful asylum seekers owing to widespread violence. The complainant is excluded from the moratorium because of his illegal entry into the United States from Canada. GE.12-43835