- 155 he would probably be detained and severely punished for his refusal to comply with the daily reporting obligations of the Komiteh. The petitioner claims further that refugees and refugee claimants are at risk of torture upon their return to Iran. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 The State party submits that the petitioner has not exhausted all effective domestic remedies. The State party argues that the petitioner has failed to seek a ministerial exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under subsection 114 (2) of the Canadian Immigration Act and section 2.1 of its Immigration Regulations. This remedy would have enabled the petitioner to apply to the Minister on Citizenship and Immigration at any time for an exemption from the requirements of the immigration legislation or for admission to Canada on compassionate or humanitarian grounds. The State party recalls the earlier findings of the Committee that humanitarian and compassionate applications are an available and effective domestic remedy.a 4.2 The State party submits further that the petitioner’s claim of violations of his rights established by articles 3 and 16 of the Convention are not substantiated. The petitioner did not establish prima facie that there are substantial grounds for believing that his deportation would have the foreseeable consequence of exposing him to a real and personal risk of being tortured if returned to Iran. The isolated past incident of torture does not establish such a risk of torture upon his return. The State party argues that the petitioner has only alleged to have been tortured on occasion of his first detention in 1984, but not in any of the subsequent detentions. His last two detentions lasted only for 24 hours and the petitioner was released with only an obligation to report daily. The State party concludes that the treatment of the petitioner followed a pattern of decreasing severity and that today he is not of interest for the authorities in Iran. 4.3 The State party submits that given the Committee’s interpretation of article 3 as offering absolute protection irrespective of an individual’s past conduct, the determination of the risk must be particularly rigorous. In this regard, the State party submits that a risk assessment was conducted when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration’s delegate considered whether the petitioner was a danger to the public and should be removed from Canada. A new assessment by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in preparation of the response of the State party to the Committee confirmed the earlier finding that the petitioner is not at risk of torture if removed to Iran. The State party argues, in this regard, that the Committee should not substitute its own findings for those of the national proceedings since they did not disclose abuse of process, bad faith, manifest bias or irregularities. It is for the national courts of the States parties to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case and the Committee should not become a “fourth instance” competent to re-evaluate findings of fact or review the application of domestic legislation. 4.4 With regard to the risk of being tortured upon his return, the State party submits that the facts in the present petition are similar to those in communication No. 36/1995, X. v. The Netherlands. The petitioner has not provided any medical evidence with regard to the alleged ill-treatment in 1984. The State party argues further that the petitioner did not indicate that, after September 1984 or because of his departure, any member of his family in Iran were victims of retribution by Iranian authorities because of the petitioner’s alleged political opinion.