CCPR/C/119/D/2613/2015 4.11 The State party submits that the alleged threats to the author’s family and demands for money from gang members have been thoroughly assessed by the national authorities. In the 2015 pre-removal risk assessment, it was determined that the threats received did not point to the author being targeted by the MS-13 gang as a result of his reporting of the MS13 gang members to the police in 1993. 4.12 The State party considers that the Committee should give important weight to the finding of the authorities of the State party in compliance with its jurisprudence. The State party submits that the author has not identified any aspects in which the decisions by the pre-removal risk assessment officers and the Federal Court in his case were manifestly arbitrary or otherwise amounted to a denial of justice. 4.13 The State party submits that, in the author’s 2015 pre-removal risk assessment, it was determined that there was insufficient evidence to find that there were no internal flight alternatives available to him. The State party takes note of the author’s allegation that there are no internal flight alternatives. It also takes into account that the author travelled to and considered two different locations in El Salvador (Tejute and San Matias), where he did not feel safe because of the presence of gang members. However, the State party submits that there is no evidence that the author was targeted by those gang members. 4.14 The State party further submits that, in the event that aspects of the author’s communication are considered admissible, the communication should be considered without merit. It alleges that there are no substantial grounds to believe that returning the author to El Salvador in 2015 would expose him to a real and personal risk of irreparable harm under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 4.15 While acknowledging that the author’s allegations regarding the MS-13 gang are serious, the State party argues that the author has not demonstrated that the alleged incidents that took place in El Salvador more than 10 years ago mean that he would face a risk of irreparable damage if returned today. It reiterates that the Government of El Salvador is engaged in significant efforts to address gang violence, that the authorities have provided the author’s family with protection and that he could seek police protection for himself should this be required. 4.16 The State party further submits that the fact that the author is considered a security concern and inadmissible to Canada must also be taken into consideration. 4.17 Finally, the State party submits that the officer for humanitarian and compassionate decisions acknowledged the author’s claim that he suffered from depression and posttraumatic stress disorder but noted that no information had been provided showing that he had sought treatment or that the treatment would not be available in El Salvador. In the 2015 pre-removal risk assessment decision, the officer acknowledged the documentation provided regarding the psychological impact of the situation on the author but considered that the psychological aspect of the author’s risk did not amount to a risk to life or a risk of cruel and “unusual” treatment or punishment, as per section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.33 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 28 March 2016, the author submitted his comments on the observations of the State party. The author relies on his previous submissions regarding the factual context underlying his complaint, including the alleged errors with respect to previous risk determinations and proceedings in the State party. 5.2 With respect to the State party’s statement that the author has not exhausted all available and effective remedies, the author submits that, in his case, seeking deferral of removal from the Canada Border Services Agency does not constitute an effective remedy. He submits that requesting deferral of removal does not constitute an appeal or redetermination of the issues canvassed in the 2015 pre-removal risk assessment and stay motion. 33 8 Pre-removal risk assessment decision, 20 April 2015, p. 9