CCPR/C/119/D/2613/2015 refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee in Stewart v. Canada,28 and alleges that the decision to remove the author was made in accordance with the law and therefore does not constitute an arbitrary or disproportionate interference with the author and his family, particularly considering that his immediate family lives in El Salvador. 4.6 Finally, the State party argues that the author’s allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant that he would face a real risk of irreparable harm in case of return to El Salvador are not sufficiently substantiated.29 It submits that the author has not established a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility and refers to the Committee’s views in X v. Denmark that States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm. 30 4.7 The State party submits that objective country reports indicate that El Salvador has a functioning police and judicial system capable of protecting its citizens. The State party acknowledges that there are still serious gang-related problems, including violence by the MS-13 gang. However, it notes that objective reports indicate that El Salvador does not consent or acquiesce to gang-related violence. It adds that a series of measures have been implemented to supress gang activity since the author’s departure in 2005 and refers to a law banning criminal gangs enacted in 2010, which has resulted in some successful prosecutions. The State party also refers to the adoption of a law for the protection of victims and witnesses.31 4.8 The State party alleges that the author’s family in El Salvador has availed itself of State protection that has proved effective and that the availability of State protection was canvassed in the three pre-removal risk assessment applications that the author has submitted. In the 2009 decision, and after having carefully considered objective country reports, the assessment officer found that the author had failed to rebut the presumption of state protection in El Salvador with clear and convincing evidence. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court, which observed that the author “did not explain why he could not avail himself of the state protection El Salvador is currently providing to the rest of his family”.32 The State party observes that, although there is a documented presence of the MS-13 gang in its own territory, the author has not reported any instances in which he would have been targeted since his arrival in 2005. 4.9 The State party also alleges that, in the light of the measures taken by the Government of El Salvador to suppress gang violence and protect its citizens, the author has failed to establish a credible claim that he is at risk of irreparable harm. Objective reports indicate that gang violence mainly affects small family business, public transportation services and vulnerable groups such as women and children. The State party submits that the author has none of the personal characteristics that would make him particularly vulnerable if returned to El Salvador. It alleges that the most recent event giving rise to the author’s alleged fear of harm from gang violence occurred in 2003-2005 and that he has not presented any credible evidence that he is still a specific target of criminal gangs. 4.10 The State party notes that the author was able to live and work without harm in his country from July 1993 until November 2003 and that he has not explained why he was not targeted during that period of time, other than to speculate that the MS-13 gang may have considered him to be dead, or that the period coincides with the prison sentence of the gang members who allegedly killed his brother in 1993. It notes that the organized nature of the MS gang and its ability to cooperate from prison makes such interpretation implausible. 28 29 30 31 32 See communication No. 538/1993, Stewart v. Canada, Views adopted on 1 November 1996, para. 12.10. See, for example, communication No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada, Views adopted on 20 March 2007, para. 7.3. See communication No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. The State party does not indicate the date on which the law was enacted. The State party refers to the Federal Court judicial review decision of the first pre-removal risk assessment decision. 7