CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 detention, torture, extrajudicial killings and impunity. The documents he submitted prove that the Congolese Government is not in control of its security forces in the country and that those forces arrest and detain citizens arbitrarily and with total impunity on the slightest suspicion of political opposition. 3.3 Given his extended stay outside the country, the fact that he applied for asylum, his criminal record, his deportation, his connection to UDPS through his father, the identity checks made upon arrival in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and his medical condition, he is at greater risk of being detained and ill-treated. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 5 August 2008, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility of the communication. It argues that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies, that his complaint is manifestly unfounded, that it constitutes an abuse of process, and that the complainant has failed to demonstrate that the decisions of the Canadian authorities have been arbitrary or have amounted to a denial of justice. The complainant disagrees with the decisions of the Canadian authorities in his case. The Committee should not, however, act as a fourth instance and should not re-examine the facts and evidence or review the application of domestic law by the Canadian authorities. 4.2 The complainant applied for asylum on 4 February 2003. On 19 March 2003, he submitted information under a false name and gave an account of his persecution in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that proved to be entirely invented. In particular, he claimed that he had lived his entire life in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that he had been arrested together with his father because of their political activities, and that his father had died in 2002 as a result of torture. 4.3 The complainant failed to appear at the hearing on 5 August 2003, when his asylum application was to be considered. On that date, another hearing was scheduled. Given that neither the author nor his counsel appeared, the proceedings were discontinued. He did not apply to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision to discontinue the proceedings. 4.4 On 30 March 2007, the complainant applied for a PRRA assessment; his application was rejected on 7 April 2008. The PRRA officer found that there were significant omissions and contradictions in the information provided by the complainant and concluded that he was not credible. On 20 May 2008, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for the PRRA decision and the removal order to be reviewed. This application was rejected on the ground that he had repeatedly lied to the Canadian and United States authorities, which called into question his credibility with regard to the alleged facts. In addition, the Court did not find any errors in the risk assessment prepared by the PRRA officer. 4.5 The State party maintains that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies because: (a) he failed to pursue his application for asylum in Canada and to apply for judicial review of the decision to discontinue the proceedings; and (b) he failed to file an application for residence based on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds. Such applications are filed on the basis of the potential risk to the person in his or her country of origin and are examined by a PRRA officer. However, unlike PRRA applications, the consideration of H&C applications is not limited to new evidence submitted since the previous decision in a case. The examination takes into account all the circumstances, not only risk factors, and goes beyond the criteria established with respect to PRRA assessments. 4.6 The State party disagrees with the decisions of the Committee in which it determined that, given the discretionary nature of ministerial decisions, it was not necessary to exhaust the H&C procedure. The fact that a remedy is discretionary does not mean that it 6 GE.12-43835