Communication N° 273/2005 Submitted by: T.A. Alleged victim: The complainant State party: Canada Declared inadmissible: 15 May 2006 Subject matter: deportation of complainant to Myanmar with alleged risk of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment several occasions and he knew that the Government was monitoring his activities. In 2001 the complainant distributed documents relating to human rights abuses, although he did not belong to a democracy organization. He was not caught distributing these documents. In 2001 a friend of the complainant founded a soccer (football) association (‘union’) and asked him to join. The complainant agreed and recruited more members to play soccer. At the time in Myanmar such associations or unions were not allowed. Procedural issue: non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Substantive issues: risk of torture on deportation; risk of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on deportation Articles of the Convention: 3, 16 2.2 In January 2002 the complainant was granted a visa to study English at the Global Village School in Vancouver, Canada. He arrived in Canada on 14 December 2002, on a student visa. 1.1 The complainant is Mr. T.A., a Burmese national born on 8 January 1978 in Yangon, Myanmar, and currently residing in Canada, from where he faces deportation. He claims that his forcible return to Myanmar would constitute a violation by Canada of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. He is represented by counsel. 2.3 In February 2003 he applied for refugee status after his mother had informed him that the Government of Myanmar was looking for him for distributing anti-government literature. She told him that the authorities had detained his father and interrogated him about the complainant’s activities. His mother also told him that one of his friends had been arrested. 1.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Committee transmitted the communication to the State party on 15 July 2005, and requested it, under rule 108, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, not to expel the complainant to Myanmar while his complaint is under consideration by the Committee. The request was made on the basis of the information contained in the complainant’s submission and could be reviewed at the request of the State party in light of information and comments from the State party and the complainant. 2.4 The complainant’s application for refugee status was dismissed on 25 September 2003. Counsel explains that the complainant did not highlight that he was a member of a soccer ‘union’ at the time of his application for refugee status, as he thought that ‘relevant organizations’ for the purposes of the application meant political organizations, not sporting organizations. He did not consider at the time that he was at risk for his involvement in the soccer ‘union’, and only learned of a warrant for his arrest based on his involvement in the soccer ‘union’ at a later stage. On 20 July 2004 the complainant made submissions under the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) procedure, including new evidence in the form of a letter from his father and a copy of the warrant for his arrest dated 29 December 2003. The PRRA was denied on 17 September 2004. At the hearing on 29 September 2004 the complainant was advised to return by 7 October 2004 with an itinerary to return to Myanmar. He was scheduled to leave Canada on 26 October 2004. 1.3 By submission of 21 December 2005, the State party requested that the admissibility of the complaint be examined separately from the merits. On 26 January 2006, the Special Rapporteur on New Communications and Interim Measures granted the State party’s request, pursuant to rule 109, paragraph 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The facts as presented by the complainant 2.1 The complainant was involved in student demonstrations while attending the University of Hlaing, Myanmar, in 1998. In November 1998 he was involved in a demonstration where he was detained and questioned. In detention, the complainant alleges that the police made him sign a document stating that if he was caught in antigovernment activities again, he would be detained indefinitely. After his release, he was interrogated on 2.5 The complainant applied for leave and judicial review of the PRRA decision before the Federal Court of Canada on 14 October 2004, which was due to be heard on 25 October 2004. In the meantime, on 22 October 2004 a consent agreement was reached between the complainant and the Minister of 7