CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 The officer also dismissed the allegation that the health services in Haiti were not equipped to replace the complainant’s pacemaker batteries, noting that access to medical care was less difficult in Port-au-Prince, the complainant’s hometown. 4.4 On 9 May 2008 the complainant applied for leave and for judicial review. On 4 June 2008 the Federal Court of Canada granted the complainant a stay of removal while those applications were being considered. On 5 January 2005 the Federal Court of Canada rejected the applications for leave and judicial review of the PRRA and H&C decisions. The Court held that it fell to the complainant to establish a link between his personal situation and the general conditions prevailing in his country, which he had not done. The Court noted that it could not, in the context of an application for judicial review, consider new evidence that had not been submitted previously to the immigration officer. The Court consequently rejected the argument that the health services in Haiti were not equipped to replace the complainant’s pacemaker batteries. 4.5 On 31 January 2009, the complainant submitted an application for an administrative stay of removal to the Canada Border Services Agency, once again alleging that the health services in Haiti were inadequate. He substantiated the application with the same evidence that had been submitted to the Committee, namely a letter from the Vice-Consul of Haiti in Montreal and a letter from a cardiologist in Canada. Consequently, the complainant’s file was referred to a doctor approved by Citizenship and Immigration Canada for a medical opinion. The approved regional doctor attached to the Canadian mission in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, was also consulted. After checking, the specialists concluded that cardiac health services were available in Haiti, and located a hospital, with a team of specialists consisting of two cardiologists and a surgeon, where the complainant would be able to have his pacemaker checked and its battery replaced. The name of the hospital and the relevant contact details were given to the complainant. In view of the fact that the necessary health services were available in Haiti, the application for an administrative stay of removal was rejected. 4.6 With regard to the admissibility of the complaint, the State party notes first of all that under article 3 of the Convention there must be substantial grounds for believing that a complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, such danger must be personal and real and must not be based on mere theory or suspicion. The State party recalls also that it falls to the complainant to establish that his complaint is admissible prima facie under article 22 of the Convention. The State party notes that the alleged danger of being kidnapped, tortured and killed by Haitian criminals, and the evidence in support of that claim, were thoroughly examined by the Canadian authorities. No new information has been submitted to the Committee to support the claim that he is well known in Haiti and would be quickly identified by criminals as a drug-trafficker. In addition, there is nothing to prove that persons removed to Haiti on grounds of criminality were in any particular danger of being kidnapped, as the claimant alleges. The State party cites the report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Stabilization Mission in Haiti, which states that there has been a decline in the number of kidnappings.2 Furthermore, the risk of kidnapping applies to the entire population. The State party concludes that even if the danger were real it would not fall within the scope of article 3 of the Convention, since kidnapping does not constitute torture. Aside from the issue of the intensity of suffering inflicted, acts of torture must be inflicted or instigated by State agents. There was nothing to show, however, that Haitian officials were involved in such kidnappings. Lastly, kidnappers appear to be motivated by greed, and not by any of the grounds mentioned in article 1 of the Convention. 2 GE.12-43638 The State party cites United Nations document S/2009/129, paras. 17 and 25. 5