CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 submitted a complaint to the Committee, requesting interim measures to suspend the order to remove him to Haiti.1 3.3 The complainant appends to his complaint a number of press articles showing that returned Haitians are systematically detained in appalling conditions and are given no food, water or medical care, which in the complainant’s case could prove fatal. The articles also describe how the Government of Haiti denies all returnees the right to obtain a Haitian passport for eight months following their return. The complainant alleges that, as attested to by the two letters submitted in support of his application for a stay of the deportation order, he would be unable to have his pacemaker replaced or receive proper medical care in Haiti, especially since there is a risk that he would not have a passport for the first few months following his return. He argues that, on the basis of all these considerations, there is a real and personal risk that his deportation to Haiti would put his life in danger. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 24 July 2009, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits. The State party considers the complaint to be incompatible with the Convention, since the alleged risks do not constitute torture for the purposes of admissibility under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The State party also maintains that the complaint has not been sufficiently substantiated, since it is based on mere theory and contains no evidence of a personal risk of torture in the event of the complainant’s removal. As a subsidiary argument, the State party considers that the complaint should be dismissed on the merits, since there is no serious reason to believe that the complainant’s removal to Haiti would expose him to a real, personal and imminent risk of torture. 4.2 The State party notes that all the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint to the Committee were thoroughly examined by the Canadian authorities, which invariably concluded that they were unfounded. The State party points out that after obtaining permanent residency status, the complainant was found guilty on 1 May 2007 of importing and possessing narcotics — namely 1.9 kg of cocaine — for the purposes of trafficking. He was sentenced to 31 months in prison on 29 June 2007. In the light of this conviction, the Canada Border Services Agency issued an inadmissibility report in respect of the complainant, and referred his case to the Immigration Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board for investigation. On 31 December 2007, following a hearing at which the complainant was given the chance to present the evidence he considered relevant, the Immigration Division confirmed the complainant’s inadmissibility on grounds of serious criminality, in accordance with article 36, paragraph 1 (a), of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and issued a removal order against him. As a result of the removal order, the complainant lost his Canadian permanent residency status. 4.3 The complainant then claimed refugee status, which was refused on 9 January 2008 on the grounds of his inadmissibility to Canada, in accordance with article 101, paragraph 2 (a), of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and article 33, paragraph 2, of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Both his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application and his humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) application were turned down on 21 April 2008. The PRRA officer considered that the complainant had not provided sufficient evidence to show that he was personally at risk of being tortured, in danger of his life or at risk of being subjected to cruel and unusual treatment. The same officer dismissed the risk of his being detained and added that even if he were detained, there was nothing to suggest that a family member would not be able to obtain his release. 1 4 Communication No. 367/2008, removed from the Committee’s list of communications on 22 November 2010. GE.12-43638