CCPR/C/119/D/2613/2015 include, for example, new evidence substantiating an allegation of risk that was previously considered, or evidence that pre-dates the last risk assessment.47 6.3 The State party submits that deferral of removal is not a discretionary remedy as argued by the author and that the enforcement officer must defer removal if there is compelling evidence that removal could expose the person to a risk of death, extreme sanction or inhumane treatment. The State party indicates that an individual could apply for leave to seek judicial review of the decision if the request to defer removal were denied. The individual could also bring a motion for a stay of removal pending the outcome of the judicial review application. The State party submits that the many decisions of the Federal Court overturning enforcement officer decisions denying deferral of removal demonstrates that these rights are not illusory. 48 6.4 As regards the author’s allegations under article 9, the State party reiterates that this article does not impose an obligation on States parties to refrain from removing individuals who face a real risk of arbitrary detention or threat to their security in the receiving State. 6.5 The State party maintains its position that the author has not substantiated sufficiently his allegations under articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. It reiterates that States parties have a wide discretion to remove aliens from their territory, particularly when security concerns are at stake. The decision to remove the author was made in the light of the significant State interest in ensuring that individuals who are deemed a security concern are removed therefrom in accordance with domestic legislation and cannot be said to constitute an arbitrary or disproportionate interference with the rights of the author and of his family. 6.6 The State party reiterates its arguments regarding the author’s allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. It further refers to recent measures that have been implemented in El Salvador to support its position that the author would not face a real risk of irreparable harm in case of return there. In that connection, the State party submits that, in July 2015, the “Secure El Salvador Plan” was launched, aiming, among other things, at creating a more effective justice system, improving services for victims and strengthening governmental institutions in order to address criminality. 49 6.7 The State party also indicates that El Salvador plans to take “extraordinary measures” to further limit the flow of communication between incarcerated gang members and those on the outside by transferring hundreds of jailed gang leaders to higher-security facilities.50 6.8 Furthermore, it refers to anti-gang reform measures passed on 21 April 2015 by the El Salvador Legislative Assembly, aiming at crime prevention and criminal justice reform,51 and also refers to the decision of the El Salvador Supreme Court of 24 August 2015, in which it held that gangs could be charged with terrorism offences.52 It indicates that, on 25 March 2016, the Government of El Salvador passed a law that imposes hefty restrictions on convicted bosses of gangs who are incarcerated.53 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 12 Ibid. See also Emelian Peter v. The Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, 2016 FCA 51, para. 7. See, for example, Ragupathy v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2006 FC 1370. See S. Kinosian and A. Albaladejo, “El Salvador’s Security Strategy in 2016: Change or More Mano Dura?” (Security Assistance Monitor, 29 February 2016). Available from http://securityassistance.org/blog/el-salvador%E2%80%99s-security-strategy-2016-change-or-moremano-dura. See J Partlow and S.E. Maslin, “El Salvador’s gangs call a cease-fire, but many doubt it will hold”, Washington Post, 3 April 2016. See S. Tabory, “El Salvador Reforms Classify Gangs as Terrorists, Criminalize Negotiation”, In Sight Crime (25 April 2016). See C. Ribando Seelke, “El Salvador: Background and U.S. Relations” (Congressional Research Service, 4 February 2016), p. 10. Available from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43616.pdf. See O. Batres, “El Salvador passes law cracking down on jailed gang bosses”, Yahoo News (1 April 2016). Available from www.yahoo.com/news/el-salvador-passes-law-cracking-down-jailed-gang225418072.html?ref=gs.