CAT/C/46/D/395/2009 complainant’s case is not that of an individual forced to return for reasons of criminality despite the genuine dangers to which he would probably be exposed; it is the case of an individual who, according to the Canadian authorities’ investigations, runs no risk of torture if returned to his country of origin. 4.4 On 22 April 2009, the complainant applied to the Federal Court of Canada for leave and judicial review of the Minister’s Opinion. On 7 July 2009, this application was rejected owing to the complainant’s failure to deposit his case file. On 12 August 2009, the complainant appealed against the order of 7 July 2009, alleging negligence on the part of his lawyers. On 17 August 2009, the Federal Court rejected his appeal, after hearing the complainant’s counsel. The grounds for the rejection were based on the argument that negligence on the part of his lawyers could not justify quashing a Federal Court decision. 4.5 The State party maintains that the complainant’s communication before the Committee is inadmissible insofar as it is incompatible with the Convention on three counts: the risks alleged by the complainant do not constitute torture within the meaning of article 1; the communication is not sufficiently substantiated; and the complainant, owing to lack of diligence, has failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies. On the first count, the State party recalls that torture, as defined by article 1 of the Convention, requires that suffering be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.5 However, in the State party’s opinion, there is nothing to suggest that the complainant runs any risks at the hands of the Lebanese authorities. It submits, further, that the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, since it fails to adduce evidence of a personal risk. None of the documents submitted by the complainant make it possible to identify the “Shia party” to which he refers. No mention is made of the nature of the complainant’s alleged involvement in such a party, nor is any explanation provided as to why, as a Shiite, he would have anything to fear from Hizbullah, itself a Shiite party. None of the documents submitted by the complainant refer to any dispute between Hizbullah and a party by the name of “Shia”, or to any persecution of Shiites by Hizbullah. 4.6 The State party contends that the complainant seeks to substantiate his allegations based primarily on the fact of his being granted refugee status by Canada in 1998. However, refugee status was granted to the complainant on the basis of claims totally different from those put forward in his communication before the Committee. In particular, his application for asylum of 1996 makes no mention of any “Shia party” or of any political affiliation on the part of the complainant. On the contrary, in the request he implied that his family was in fact uninvolved in politics and that it was precisely his brother’s refusal to become involved that had led to Hizbullah’s attack in the first place. The request also suggested that the complainant was not personally targeted, but that he risked injury because he was in his brother’s vicinity. Moreover, the only risk alleged by the complainant in his 1996 asylum application was that of persecution by the Syrian forces. Even if the complainant had refused to join Hizbullah during the civil war, there is nothing to suggest, more than 10 years later, that this continues to constitute a threat to his safety. Even the evidence submitted by the complainant in his communication to the Committee indicates that Hizbullah does not forcibly recruit and is not prone to reprisals. This same evidence indicates that the protection provided by the State is usually adequate, particularly outside the southern part of the country. 5 GE.11-43850 International Crisis Group dated 15 May 2008 and a report on Lebanon of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, of 31 October 2007. Communication No. 291/2006, S.A. v. Tunisia, para. 15.4. 5