CAT/C/39/D/304/2006 Page 8 4.18 The State party notes that, in considering the complainants’ case, the Canadian authorities consulted numerous documents on the general situation in Mexico, including the Committee’s final comments following its consideration of Mexico’s latest periodic report. It appears that torture is still a problem in the Mexican penal system. 4.19 In the State party’s view, the fact that the complainants have not shown that there are substantial prima facie grounds to believe that they personally would face a real and foreseeable risk of torture in Mexico renders their complaint inadmissible. They have been unable to demonstrate that the individuals who are looking for them are in fact public officials or persons acting in an official capacity or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of the Mexican authorities, which is a necessary condition for a finding of risk of torture. 4.20 Consequently, the State party considers that the complainants have failed to establish a prima facie violation of article 3 of the Convention and the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. In the alternative, the State party argues that the communication is unfounded. Complainants’ comments 5.1 The complainants submitted comments on the State party’s observations on 17 June 2007. They repeat their previous claims and further argue, in respect of the Committee’s competence to evaluate the facts and evidence, that in their case the Canadian authorities’ evaluation of the evidence was manifestly arbitrary and resulted in a denial of justice. 5.2 With regard to the State party’s observations on their claims to have been the victims of errors made by the lawyers (and interpreters) they had retained, the complainants note that they also complained of errors made by the Canadian decision makers. In particular, the Refugee Protection Division judge had decided that the place of death of the complainant’s partner given in the newspapers and in her testimony was different from that given on the death certificate. 5.3 The complainant states that she has indeed exhausted all available effective remedies. She applied for asylum with her daughter and her application was rejected. She requested judicial review of that rejection in the Federal Court; she applied for PRRA and filed on humanitarian grounds. She applied for administrative stays to halt their removal. Now that all those applications have been turned down, she maintains, there are no other remedies available. 5.4 As to the lack of grounds for the communication and the personal risk of persecution, the complainant states that the central piece of evidence in her case, her partner’s death certificate, was evaluated in an arbitrary and unfair fashion. That evidence clearly shows that she and her daughter would personally be at direct risk in Mexico. 5.5 The complainants repeat that these errors, which arise from a failure to properly examine the case, adversely affected them, paving the way for their return to a place where they could suffer torture, disappearance or even death.