CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 reason of his religion, although he later asserted this as the primary basis for his refugee protection claim in his Basis of Claim form. In that form, dated 9 March 2013, the complainant asserted that he was claiming refugee protection because he and his family — prominent members of the Shia community in his town — were threatened by the “Pakistan Taliban and Lashkar-e-Taiba and the community of suni people” in Pakistan. He claimed that he had been beaten and tortured by the Lashkar-e-Taiba in January 2010 and that his cousin had been killed during that incident. He also stated that he would be killed and tortured by the Lashkar-e-Taiba and Pakistan Taliban should he return to Pakistan; that the police had refused to write a report following the incident in January 2010, and that although he had moved to another part of his country (Karachi), there were problems there as well, so he had returned to his city. On 6 May 2013, the complainant added that his family had been attacked at home on 26 July 2012, six days after he had returned to Pakistan from England and that he had therefore returned to England on 28 July 2012. 4.5 The complainant’s claim for protection was heard by the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board on 6 May 2013. At the hearing, the complainant was represented by counsel and had the right to adduce evidence and make submissions. The Division is an independent, quasi-judicial, specialized tribunal that considers applications by foreign nationals seeking the protection of the State party based on a fear of persecution, torture or other serious violations of their human rights if they were to be removed to their country of origin. The Division determines not only whether a person is a refugee within the meaning of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, but also whether the claimant is a “person in need of protection” under section 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Section 97 mandates the protection of persons facing a real risk of torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention against Torture on removal from the State party. Generally speaking, a person who is determined to be a “person in need of protection” has a statutory right under section 115 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act not to be removed. This statutory principle of non-refoulement is in addition to the rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. 4.6 The Refugee Protection Division conducts an oral hearing that is usually held privately and is conducted in an informal and non-adversarial manner. Officials from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees may observe the proceedings. Individuals seeking protection as a refugee or a protected person are usually assisted by legal counsel as well as an interpreter and are provided every opportunity to establish, through oral testimony and supporting documentary evidence, that they are a refugee or a person in need of protection. Division members receive comprehensive, ongoing training in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and other aspects of the State party’s international legal obligations, including the obligation to protect against removal to torture or other equally serious violations of human rights. Division members are well-informed and develop expertise in the conditions and events in countries of alleged persecution or other human rights violations. The Division comes to its conclusions based on the evidence adduced during the oral hearing and all available relevant documentation provided to it. It communicates all of its decisions in writing. The Division provides written reasons for all negative decisions and for positive decisions if the Minister was not present when the Division rendered an oral decision, as well as reasons allowing a claim for refugee protection. In practice, written reasons are provided for almost all decisions. 4.7 The complainant provided documentary evidence and oral testimony to the Refugee Protection Division and had the opportunity to explain any ambiguities or inconsistencies and to respond to any questions that the Division had with regard to his claim. By its decision dated 21 June 2013, the Division determined that the complainant was not a refugee or a person in need of protection and, accordingly, that he was not a person whose removal to his country of nationality would subject him personally “to a danger, believed 5