CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 4.7 The State party considers that in alleging a risk of detention, the complainant is probably referring to the practice of preventive imprisonment of criminal deportees at the Port-au-Prince national penitentiary. This practice was abolished following a court ruling of 11 September 2006. Since then, Haitian policy has been to detain criminal deportees temporarily at an office of the Central Directorate of the Criminal Investigation Service near the airport for a period of up to 2 weeks. The aim of the preventive detention is to establish whether the individual has committed crimes in Haiti and to allow a family member to stand surety. The individual is then granted conditional release for a period of eight weeks to six months. The State party notes that this practice is not invariable. Since August 2008, 9 of the 23 persons deported from Canada to Haiti on the grounds of criminality were detained; from August 2007 to August 2008 the figure was 7 out of 15. According to the information available to the State party, none of the deportees were detained at the national penitentiary and there have been no complaints of any ill-treatment. In addition, the State party recalls that, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, mere arrest or detention does not as such constitute torture.3 In the present case, the complainant does not allege that he is in danger of being tortured by the Haitian authorities and does not submit any evidence to show that the conditions of detention at the Central Directorate of the Criminal Investigation Service constitute torture. 4.8 The State party considers that the allegations relating to the complainant’s wife and children are inadmissible ratione materiae, since they do not constitute torture under the Convention. 4.9 The allegations relating to the complainant’s pacemaker have already been considered by the Canadian authorities in the context of his application for an administrative stay of removal. As stated in paragraph 4.5, Citizenship and Immigration Canada requested a medical opinion, which confirmed that the medical care required to maintain the complainant’s pacemaker was available in Haiti and that, therefore, the complainant’s allegations in that regard were not persuasive. The State party adds that, according to the Committee’s settled jurisprudence, “the aggravation of the complainant’s state of health that could possibly be caused by his deportation does not amount to the type of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment envisaged by article 16 of the Convention”.4 The scope of the non-refoulement obligation described in article 3 does not extend to situations of ill-treatment envisaged by article 16.5 Consequently, this part of the complaint is incompatible with the Convention and is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 4.10 The State party rejects the complainant’s allegations on the merits, and notes that they were studied by independent and impartial national authorities, fairly and in compliance with the law. In the absence of proof of an obvious error, abuse of process, bad faith, obvious bias or serious irregularities in the procedure, the Committee should not substitute its own findings of fact for those of the Canadian authorities. Moreover, the Committee6 has repeatedly stated that it is not for the Committee to question the evaluation of facts and evidence by national authorities.7 3 4 5 6 6 The State party cites communication No. 57/1996, decision adopted 17 November 1997, P.Q.L. v. Canada. The State party cites communication No. 245/2004, decision adopted 16 November 2005, S.S.S. v. Canada, para. 7.3. The State party cites communication No. 228/2003, decision adopted 18 November 2003, T.M. v. Sweden, para. 6.2. The State party cites communication No. 193/2001, decision adopted 21 November 2002, P.E. v. France, para. 6.5; communication No. 282/2005, decision adopted 7 November 2006, S.P.A. v. GE.12-43638