only opportunity that the author had to provide documentation regarding the risk he faced was when the Minister of Immigration was requested to render an opinion as to whether it would be contrary to the public interest to allow the author to proceed with his refugee claim. Once that documentation had been provided, the entire decision-making process was conducted by the immigration officials. Counsel was not even advised of what other materials the authorities would be considering; consequently, he never had an opportunity to comment upon or respond to all materials that might have been before the Minister. 5.5 The State party stated that if it had determined that the petitioner did not fall within an inadmissible category, there would be no basis for excluding him from the refugee determination process and he would not have been removed pending consideration of his refugee claim. This statement is extremely misleading. In fact, the finding of the adjudicator resulted in the issuance of a conditional deportation order. This result does not necessarily mean that an individual will not be afforded the opportunity to proceed with his refugee claim; it provides that the deportation is conditional upon the outcome of the refugee claim. 5.2 Counsel refers to the memorandum to the Minister which she purportedly relied upon in taking her decision that it would be contrary to the public interest to allow the author to proceed with his refugee claim. According to counsel, the memorandum was evidence that there was absolutely no analysis of the particular risk facing the author in India given his past and current profile. It mainly focused on the author’s past history and Canada’s international obligations regarding the treatment of so-called terrorists; however, there was little reference to Canada’s numerous international obligations under human rights treaties, including the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. 5.6 Although it is acknowledged that the adjudicator’s finding does provide immigration authorities with an avenue to seek the Minister’s opinion with respect to whether the refugee process should remain open to such a person, there is no guarantee that such an avenue will be pursued. There was no obligation on the part of Canadian immigration authorities, or even the Minister, to prevent the author from proceeding with his refugee claim. The author’s access to the refugee process was halted for political, not judicial or quasi-judicial, reasons. His refugee claim could have proceeded in spite of the adjudicator’s finding. 5.7 The State party seems to be arguing that due diligence requires that a person ought to protect himself from every eventuality that might occur. Counsel argues that this is not the standard required by article 22 (5) of the Convention. A person who is anxious to proceed with telling his life story to authorities in order to secure their protection should not be blamed for not wishing to extend his agony by undertaking yet another judicial review when the refugee process remains open to him. 5.3 Counsel also provided an affidavit by the author’s niece who was in India when the author arrived from Canada. She states that upon his arrival, the author was subjected to interrogation for about six hours and that he was verbally threatened by officers from the Central Bureau of Investigation. She expressed concern that he would eventually be subjected to torture or extrajudicial execution. Further information submitted to the Committee by the niece indicates that the intimidation of the author and his family by the police has continued and that the author has informed the Human Rights Commission of Punjab about it. 5.8 Regarding the author’s failure to perfect an application for leave for judicial review of the Minister’s opinion, counsel contends that the deadline would have been near the end of January 1998. However, the author was removed on 23 December 1997. This damage could not be undone regardless of the outcome of any judicial review application. The author had every intention of proceeding with an application for judicial review of the Minister’s decision and counsel appeared in Federal Court on 20 December 1997 to seek a stay of the removal pending the outcome of this application. Unfortunately, the Federal Court chose to render a decision on what counsel views as the merits of the author’s claim to refugee status. The result was that the author was deported three days later. The State party has failed to mention what procedure would be used to bring the author safely back to Canada had the Minister been compelled by the Court to render another decision. 5.4 With respect to the admissibility of the communication, counsel argues, in a submission of 11 June 1998, that at the time the decision of the adjudicator was rendered, it was not absolutely necessary for the author to seek leave for judicial review in order for him to be able to proceed with a refugee claim. The cost of the legal proceedings was only one factor, which guided the author’s decision not to seek review. His main interest was to avoid any further delays in proceeding with his refugee claim. He had been in Canada for almost two years and was anxious to present his refugee claim to the Canadian authorities. He did not wish to delay this process by launching another judicial review. Secondly, there was little likelihood of success at any judicial review. 54