CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 Prior to submitting his comments, the complainant provided additional information on 13 and 16 September 2009 in support of his request for interim measures. He notes that he made a further application for an administrative stay of removal on 4 September 2009, which was rejected the very same day; he was concerned that the reply he received was identical to the letter rejecting his first application for an administrative stay, dated 9 February 2009, save for the following phrase: “The individual’s pacemaker can be replaced in the Dominican Republic.” That meant that his pacemaker could not be replaced in his home country, Haiti, but would have to be replaced in another country. There is no guarantee that the complainant will be able to travel to the Dominican Republic, especially in view of his criminal past. Following the rejection of his first application for a stay of removal, the complainant obtained two medical statements, dated 11 and 12 February 2009. One of the statements was from Medtronic Canada, informing the complainant that the company did not know of a clinic or doctor in Haiti authorized to provide Medtronic pacemaker support. The complainant stresses that he does not simply need medical care in Haiti: he needs there to be Medtronic equipment in Haiti. The applicant also mentions a letter, dated 14 September 2009, from a doctor at the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal, who also casts doubt on the availability of medical staff trained to replace Medtronic pacemakers in Haiti.8 5.2 On 4 October 2009 the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He recalled that in its concluding observations, the Committee had expressed its concern at the explicit exclusion of certain categories of persons posing security or criminal risks from the protection against refoulement provided by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002 (sect. 115, subsect. 2). The Committee had then recommended that the State party remove the exclusions in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act 2002, thereby extending to currently excluded persons entitlement to the status of protected person, and protection against refoulement on account of a risk of torture.9 The complainant thus claims that he cannot be deported to Haiti for having committed a crime in Canada; other individual cases show that persons who ran the risk of being tortured but had a criminal past had been deported, and they had not been heard of since. 5.3 Contrary to what is affirmed by the State party, there is no standard practice regarding the detention of returned persons. The abolition of the practice of preventive detention of criminal deportees at the Port-au-Prince national penitentiary is too recent to infer that there is no risk of arbitrary detention. Press articles submitted by the complainant show that people are arbitrarily detained in police stations, in inhuman conditions of detention, with no proper access to water, food or health care. In the complainant’s case, such deficiencies could prove fatal. Even regular prisons have deficiencies in the provision of medical care, which would certainly put the complainant’s life at risk. In this regard, the complainant refers to articles by the non-governmental organization Alternative Chance, 7 8 9 GE.12-43638 Canada, para. 7.6; and communication No. 148/1999, decision adopted 5 May 2004, A.K. v. Australia, para. 6.4. Following the State party’s observations, the Committee decided to withdraw its request for interim measures on 4 August 2009. Following receipt of this additional information, the Committee asked the State party on 15 September 2009 to provide it with further details that would enable the Committee to determine whether the current state of medical technology in Haiti would allow the applicant’s pacemaker battery to be replaced. Pending a reply from the State party, the State party was requested not to deport the applicant to Haiti. Concluding observations, Canada, CAT/C/CR/34/CAN, 7 July 2005, paras. 4 (d) and 5 (b). 7