CAT/C/40/D/293/2006 page 8 5.4 The applicant states that he sent a letter to the Mexican consulate saying that there was no hospital in Mexico where he could be treated. A letter of 3 May 2005 from his Canadian doctor stated that he would need further treatment in a specialized rehabilitation unit for about one year. However, that had not been taken into account by the Canadian authorities. It was only after the publication of several press articles about his case that his expulsion was deferred by six months. 5.5 According to the complainant, after his asylum hearing on 6 June 2000, no Canadian agency would listen to his argument. All the proceedings were in writing. In each PRRA application he could have been asked to attend a hearing in order to make his allegations better understood, but he was never invited. Often, the decisions were taken very quickly and without assessment of the evidence. In addition, the same official reached a decision on his first and second humanitarian applications and his second PRRA application. An effective remedy would be the Refugee Appeal Section, which the State party was unwilling to bring into play, despite the fact that it is covered by the new Immigration Act. The Federal Court is an effective remedy, but limited to procedural errors. It does not analyse cases on their merits, and if it decides in favour of applicants the case is referred to the preceding body for a new analysis and decision. The PRRA is not an effective or adequate remedy, and its officials are insensitive to the suffering and risks faced by persons who fear being deported to countries where they may be subjected to torture or cruel treatment or punishment. 5.6 As to the fact that the applicant did not challenge the rejection of his first PRRA application, he states that he could not afford and had no possibility of obtaining legal assistance. Moreover, he did not believe in the effectiveness of such a remedy. 5.7 Concerning the immigrant visa application lodged with the Delegation of Quebec in Mexico in July 2002, the complainant states that he decided to leave for Mexico because the Quebec authorities were unwilling to interview him in Montreal. He gave up the Post-Determination Refugee Claimants in Canada (PDRCC) Class because it was even more difficult to join than the PRRA programme and he was sure that he would be accorded his immigrant visa. 5.8 Contrary to the State party’s affirmation, the complainant did not return to Canada three months after his immigration application had been rejected, but only two days after having received a refusal of the application for a review of the initial decision. That shows his fear due to the alleged danger. His family remained in hiding in Mexico. When his sister went to the Attorney General’s Office in the Federal District to ask for an attestation of employment which he had to submit to the Canadian authorities, the officials insisted on seeing him and obtaining his address, stating that they had matters to settle with him. 5.9 As to the complainants’ links with Canada, he submits copies of a 2004 attestation of employment (Parc Hotel Management), a letter from his employer dated January 2007 (OCE Business Services) and Revenue Canada’s Contribution Assessment for 2006. He also submits the temporary work permit issued to his wife, letters attesting to his participation in the research project run by the McGill University physiotherapy and ergonomics school, a certificate of participation in the support group for serious burns victims and a confirmation of his participation in the CHUM hospital’s serious burns study.