CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 which note the poor detention conditions in Haiti. The complainant considers that his life is also at risk outside prison, given the inadequate medical infrastructure in Haiti for the replacement of his pacemaker. 5.4 The complainant mentions the case of another individual who risked being returned to Haiti, and who also had a criminal past in Canada. The complainant considers that in this case the Federal Court had given more weight to the documents by Alternative Chance than to the assertions by a State official that he had not observed any cases of deportees to Haiti being detained or tortured.10 In the present case, the Committee should also give more weight to the findings of a serious organization such as Alternative Chance than to an assertion in a press article that the new detention policy implemented following the court decision of 11 September 2006 had eliminated the risk of arbitrary detention in Haiti. The complainant therefore reiterates that it is too early to ascertain whether the measures taken by the Haitian authorities in that regard have been effective. 5.5 With regard to the statistics submitted by the State party on the number of returnees who had been detained, the applicant considers that even if only one person had been detained, the risk would still be real. The complainant agrees with the State party that mere arrest or detention does not constitute torture. However, being held in inhuman, degrading conditions, with no access to proper medical care or to one’s medical file and no chance of a fair trial, does constitute torture and cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 5.6 The complainant also refers to a document published on the website of Alternative Chance,11 which describes United States case law relating to the non-refoulement of Haitian criminals. In one of the cases, a United States court had considered that a mentally disabled person who was HIV-positive ran the risk of being discriminated against and subjected to treatment equivalent to torture if he were deported. The complainant concludes that even if ordinary deportees do not run the risk of being tortured in the event of their return to Haiti, deportees who are ill, such as himself, do run such a risk because of the deliberate negligence of the Haitian authorities, which amounts to a violation of human rights. The complainant therefore considers that, contrary to the State party’s claims, he has demonstrated that he would run a real, personal risk of being subjected to torture if he were deported to his country of origin. 5.7 With regard to the allegations concerning his pacemaker, the claimant criticizes the State party for having analysed the situation in an incomplete and superficial manner,12 as can be seen from the superficial response to his application for an administrative stay of removal, dated 4 September 2009, which was identical to the letter rejecting the first application for an administrative stay, dated 9 February 2009, save for the following phrase: “The individual’s pacemaker can be replaced in the Dominican Republic.” The complainant would be surprised if he could be removed to one country and then authorized to travel to a third country for the treatment required by his heart condition. In his view, his criminal past precludes that possibility. Even if he managed to travel to the Dominican Republic after his return to Haiti, his deportation from Canada would be in violation of Canada’s international obligations, which prohibit it from deporting a person on the assumption that he will subsequently be able to travel to a third country. With regard to the claim that suitable medical care is available in Haiti, the complainant refers the Committee to the information 10 11 12 8 For reasons of confidentiality, the identity of the person in question is not mentioned. Paper entitled “Cases of respondents who fear imprisonment as criminal deportees to Haiti: updates in the law since Matter of J-E-”, at: http://alternativechance.org. The complainant informs the Committee that he submitted an application to the Federal Court for judicial review of the decision refusing an administrative stay of removal, and that the application was still being processed when he submitted his comments to the Committee. GE.12-43638