CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 6.4 Regarding articles 9 and 10, the State party reiterates that, at the time of deportation, the risk of detention was only speculative and hypothetical, and its responsibility cannot extend to detention by another State. It therefore invites the Committee to declare this part of the communication inadmissible ratione materiae. 6.5 With respect to the allegedly unhygienic conditions at Bellevue Hospital and the related claim made by the author under articles 7 and 10, the State party cannot be prevented from deporting a foreign national to his country of origin solely because of unfavourable hospital conditions in the receiving country. This part of the communication should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae. 6.6 With respect to housing, the evidence suggests that various forms of housing were available to the author in Jamaica. In Canada, the author was also listed as having “no fixed address”. Although his niece offered to host him, it was questioned whether that would be an appropriate placement because his niece had small children whose safety might have been endangered. Similarly with respect to medication, the author had a history of noncompliance even when in Canada, which contributes to his unstable mental condition, whatever the quality of mental care available, whether in Canada or in Jamaica. 6.7 The State party submits that the author’s new allegations under article 6 of the Covenant, in which he sought to link homelessness and deteriorating health to the right to life, go beyond the scope of this provision, ratione materiae, and should be held inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The right to life does not include a positive obligation to provide a home and to guarantee a certain level of health; even less when the living conditions at stake are in another State. 6.8 With respect to articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant, the State party reiterates its previous arguments. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 14 July 2014, the author reiterated his previous submissions and held that the risks to which he has actually been exposed were foreseeable. While it may not have been foreseeable that the author would be raped by the exact person who assaulted him, the fact that he faced a serious risk of irreparable harm was certainly evident from the evidence available at the time of removal. It was entirely foreseeable that without adequate housing and sufficient support to manage his symptoms of schizophrenia, his mental health would deteriorate, exposing him to violence from the community and the police, as well as to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. 7.2 The fact that the State party found temporary housing for the author in a homeless shelter implies that it was well aware that he lacked appropriate support in Jamaica. Similarly, the fact that it arranged a three-month supply of treatment suggests that Canada was well aware of the obstacles for persons in the author’s situation with respect to obtaining adequate medication. 7.3 With respect to housing, the author qualifies as mere conjecture the State party’s dismissal of the housing option which the author had in Canada with his niece. While recognizing that he had a period in Canada with no fixed address, unlike in Jamaica, a vast array of community and medical support centres exist in Canada, which ensure adequate housing, clothing and diet and monitor medication compliance. 7.4 The author rejects the State party’s assertion that his own non-compliance with medication contributes to his unstable mental condition. It is misleading to suggest that he makes a conscious choice about whether to comply or not with medication and to seek out appropriate medical care. Experiencing difficulty maintaining medication compliance without appropriate assistance is a common symptom of schizophrenia. As a result, the 12