CAT/C/39/D/297/2006 page 8 Counsel states that she was notified on 12 June 2006 that the complainant’s removal had been set for 16 June 2006. She claims that, despite several requests for the exact time and destination of removal, she was given no information. 6.3 A provisional application for a stay was then made to the Federal Court, together with a request for an emergency hearing by telephone conference. The Canadian Government agreed to a temporary stay of removal pending a Federal Court hearing on the application for a stay, to be held on or around 16 June 2006. On 23 June 2006 the Federal Court rejected the application for a stay and the removal order then became enforceable. 6.4 On 30 June 2006 counsel filed a notice of appeal against the decision on the application for a stay with the Federal Court of Appeal, which rejected it the same day. 6.5 The Canadian Government deported the complainant to India on 2 July 2006, despite the Committee’s request for interim measures. Counsel repeats that she was not informed of the destination, but notes that after the deportation she was told, on or about 5 July 2006, that the complainant had been arrested by the local police on arrival at the airport and taken to the Gurdaspur police station, where he remained in detention until 10 July 2006 on a number of serious criminal charges. She also says she was told that the complainant had been beaten and ill-treated by the Indian authorities while in detention at the Gurdaspur police station. Counsel states that the complainant was then taken from the police detention centre to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 6.6 After the complainant had been deported, the two applications for leave and judicial review of the 11 May 2006 protection decision and of the removal order were granted. On 29 August 2006 the judge found that the case raised serious questions and the applications were accordingly heard in the Federal Court on 22 January 2007. 6.7 On 1 February 2007 the applications for leave and judicial review were rejected by the Federal Court, which found that they had become moot by virtue of the enforcement of the removal order against the complainant. His removal despite the fact that those requests were still before the Court deprived the complainant of the remedies available to him in Canada and he has therefore exhausted all domestic remedies. 6.8 Counsel contacted the complainant in India on 13 March 2007. He told her that he was charged with having supplied explosives to a person who had been convicted under Canadian arms and explosives legislation. He also told her he had been beaten by the police while in prison and threatened with further beatings if he reported that ill-treatment. Comments on the merits 6.9 Counsel notes that, by sending the complainant back to India, the State party violated his rights under the procedure for determining the risks of torture and article 3 of the Convention. She recalls that the Canadian authorities denied that the complainant ran any risk of torture in order to be able to send him back legally. The Canadian Government erred in its assessment of the risk of torture in the event of return, in part by having recourse to secret evidence that the complainant did not have access to and could not challenge.