CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 refugee protection system by removing duplicate proceedings. Several decision makers assess the allegations of personal risk presented by individuals seeking the State party’s protection: the Refugee Protection Division, the Federal Court and a Canada Border Services Agency Removals Officer (if the person were to request an administrative deferral of removal). Such risk assessments usually occur within a 12- to 18-month time frame, which obviates the need for an additional assessment of the same risk factors by either a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer or a Humanitarian and Compassionate Officer. Furthermore, the H&C process is intended to provide claimants with an alternate avenue by which to seek the State party’s protection, one that is not based on personal risk of irreparable harm but is more broadly based and allows for consideration of a number of other factors. The author has not provided any evidence to support her criticisms of the refugee protection system in Canada. 6.23 For the foregoing reasons, the State party also considers that the communication is wholly without merit. It further considers that the author is attempting to use the Committee as a tribunal of “fourth instance” and that the material submitted by the author cannot support a finding that the domestic decisions were manifestly arbitrary, erroneous or equivalent to a denial of justice. Author’s additional comments 7.1 On 1 May 2015, the author informed the Committee that she had filed an H&C application in January 2015. The three men who allegedly murdered her brother were freed after their appeal before the Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction was granted on 13 November 2014.10 Their release from detention presented additional danger for her should she return to Bangladesh. 7.2 On 4 September 2015, the author informed the Committee that one of her nephews, H., had been granted asylum in the United Kingdom. She claims that an H&C application does not stay removal until acceptance of the application at the “first level” and that the acquittal and release of B. and his associates would further endanger her. The convictions of the three individuals were overturned “as soon as pressure from the [United Kingdom] stopped”, which demonstrates the clear lack of State protection in Bangladesh. Finally, current documentary evidence demonstrates that nothing has changed in Bangladesh since the communication was submitted in 2013. Impunity and corruption still undermine judicial processes and prevent individuals from obtaining State protection there. 11 State party’s further observations 8. In a further submission dated 6 July 2015, the State party reiterates its prior arguments and observes that according to the court document provided by the author, the High Court Division set aside the convictions of her brother’s alleged killers on 23 January 2013, not on 13 November 2014, as the author asserts. Accordingly, the court’s decision was available to the author for use at her hearing before the Refugee Protection Division on 14 February 2013 as well as for her PRRA application filed on 22 October 2014. Moreover, 10 11 The author provides a decision of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, High Court Division, Dhaka (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) dated 20-23 January 2013. The Court set aside the convictions and death sentences of B., K.S. and P. for the murder of I., owing to the prosecution’s failure to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The author also provides a copy of a judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Appellate Division, dated 19 January 2015. The judgment upheld the decision of the High Court Division to set aside the convictions of B., K.S. and P., in the absence of any cogent evidence proving the charges against them. The author cites Freedom House, 2015 Freedom in the World Report: Bangladesh. 11