CCPR/C/115/D/2284/2013 “reasonable decision”, meaning that, even if the judge asserts that the officer could have decided otherwise, the decision is maintained if it is accompanied by logical reasoning in fact and in law. The author therefore considers the remedies available in Canada to be ineffective, in violation of article 2 of the Covenant. 3.4 For the same reasons, the author claims that article 13 o f the Covenant has been violated, since he has not been allowed to advance the reasons why he should not be deported or have his case reviewed by a competent authority. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 5 February 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits. The State party notes that the author’s allegations are the same as those presented to the Canadian authorities and recalls that it is not the role of the Committee to evaluate facts and evidence unless the national authorities’ evaluation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial o f justice. 8 The material submitted by the author does not support a finding that the Canadian authorities’ decisions suffered from any such defects. 4.2 According to the State party, the author’s claim under article 2 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible, as this provision cannot by and of itself give rise to a claim. 9 Article 2 of the Covenant does not establish an independent right to reparation but merely defines the scope of States parties’ legal obligations. 10 Given the subsidiary nature of article 2, only a concomitant violation of a recognized right may give rise to the right to a remedy. 11 Consequently, the author’s claims in this regard must be rejected in accordance with article 3 of the Optional Protocol or, alternatively, found to be groundless. It is not for the Committee to assess the entire Canadian system. Furthermore, all the Canadian institutions that have dealt with the author’s case have thoroughly examined both the claims and the evidence. The Canadian authorities have not been shown to have acted in an arbitrary fashion or to have committed any error whatsoever in the examination of the case. 4.3 With regard to the claims made under article 6, paragraph 1, and article 7, the State party submits that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility. In particular, he has been unable to substantiate his claims that his life is in danger and that he risks being tortured or subjected to ill -treatment if he is returned to Chad. The Canadian courts have found that his story is not entirely credible, since it was not supported by objective proof and was incoherent and contradictory. Furthermore, the author presented a false document to the Refugee Protection Division as proof that he is a member of an association that promotes fundamental freedoms in Chad, which greatly damaged his credibility. According to the decision of the Refugee Protection Division, the author has stated that he has never been arrested, charged or detained, but this contradicts his allegations that he was detained and held for four days in March 2008. The author has been unable to explain why he neglected to mention this. Furthermore, his claim that he is being sought to this day by the officer who freed him in 2008 in exchange for his car is implausible; he has been unable to explain why the officer who supposedly saved his life in 2008 should now be searching for him. Nor has he explained why, when applying to the Refugee Protection Division, he did not submit the written statement by Ms. Larlem in __________________ 8 9 10 11 GE.15-21665 See communication No. 1551/2007, Tarlue v. Canada, decision on inadmissibility adopted on 27 March 2009, para. 7.4. The State party refers, inter alia, to communication No. 1551/2007, Tarlue v. Canada, para. 7.3. See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 3. See communications Nos. 343, 344 and 345/1988, R.A.V.N. et al v. Argentina, decision on inadmissibility adopted on 26 March 1990, para. 5.3. 7/13