CAT/C/60/D/699/2015 3.3 The complainant asserts that the Government of Sri Lanka is extremely concerned about its international reputation and the accusation that it does not respect international human rights law. This is why a large number of journalists, human rights workers and humanitarian aid workers who have reported on human rights violations in Sri Lanka have been killed or disappeared. 3.4 The complainant submits that the Canadian decision makers erred in disregarding the existing risk for young Tamil males from northern Sri Lanka. In particular, the Immigration and Refugee Board failed to recognize the extent of State terrorism in Sri Lanka and the lack of protection of the State. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 16 February 2016, the State party submitted that the complaint was inadmissible on the grounds that domestic remedies had not been exhausted and that the alleged risk of torture had not been substantiated. 4.2 The State party notes that the complainant has failed to exhaust an effective domestic remedy, namely an application for permanent residency on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The complainant became eligible to file such an application on 9 October 2014 but has not availed himself of this remedy.2 Humanitarian and compassionate applications are examined by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration3 or his delegate, and the assessment consists of a broad, discretionary review by the decision maker to determine whether an individual should be granted permanent residency in Canada for those reasons. Applications for residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds involve the consideration of different risks than those assessed within the separate Refugee Protection Division and pre-removal risk assessment processes. Applicants may base their request on any relevant facts that they wish to have considered, such as establishment in and ties with Canada; separation of relatives and the best interests of children affected by the application; health conditions; and adverse country conditions that have a direct, negative impact on the application such as war, unfair treatment of minorities, political instability or widespread violence. A humanitarian and compassionate application would allow the complainant to submit as evidence any circumstances that he foresees facing upon his return to Sri Lanka and which he perceives as constituting hardship that is unusual or undeserved or disproportionate. 4.3 The State party notes, firstly, that humanitarian and compassionate officers, like preremoval risk assessment officers, are senior immigration officials employed by Citizenship and Immigration Canada and have been recognized by the courts as being equally as independent and impartial. Secondly, while a stay of removal is not automatically available on a humanitarian and compassionate application, removal orders are stayed upon initial approval of the application. A stay of removal may also be obtained from the Federal Court if compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds can be demonstrated. An administrative deferral of removal may also be requested. Thirdly, regardless of the grounds, such application protects the applicants from removal to a country where they allege to be at risk. The complainant has not raised any objections to the humanitarian and compassionate process, nor has he suggested that such process would be ineffective or unfair in his particular case. 4.4 The State party maintains that the complaint is manifestly unfounded and, alternatively, without merit. Neither the complainant’s personal history nor his status as a failed asylum seeker who travelled aboard the MV Ocean Lady creates substantial grounds to believe that he would face a real and personal risk of torture if he were returned to Sri Lanka. 2 3 The State party cites, inter alia, the Committee’s decisions in communications No. 66/1997, P.S.S. v. Canada, para. 6.2 and No. 95/2000, L.O. v. Canada, para. 6.5. At the same time, it “regrets the view of the Committee in some recent cases, in which it viewed the [humanitarian and compassionate] applications as remedies that do not need to be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility”. Now the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship. 3