CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 provided in his letters of 13 and 16 September 2012 (see paragraph 5.1 above). The complainant concludes that the risk analysis carried out by the Canadian authorities lacked impartiality and contained obvious errors. Additional comments by the parties 6.1 On 17 December 2009 the State party replied that, from the complainant’s comments, it appeared that he had not bothered to contact the Sacré-Coeur hospital, the contact details of which had been passed on by the State party, after checking that the hospital’s specialists were able to check the operation of the complainant’s pacemaker and replace the battery. Following the complainant’s comments, the State party had contacted the hospital again, which confirmed that the Medtronic battery of the complainant’s pacemaker could be replaced by a Biotronik battery, and that this could be done by specialists at the hospital. If necessary, the hospital could also fit the complainant with a new pacemaker equivalent to the KDR 733 Kappa, namely the Biotronik Axios model. The complainant’s claims are therefore unfounded. 6.2 Contrary to the complainant’s assertions, the Haitian and Canadian authorities are aware of the situation of one of the Haitian deportees he mentioned in his comments;13 after being detained, the deportee was released, as noted by members of the Montreal police force who were on a temporary assignment in Haiti. The State party notes that an affidavit by the First Secretary (Immigration) and migration integrity officer at the Embassy of Canada in Port-au-Prince describes the current practice, in place since 2007, of Haitian authorities with regard to Haitian nationals removed from Canada on grounds of criminality. This detailed information contradicts, in a conclusive manner, the complainant’s claim that the submissions by Canada are based on practices by the Haitian authorities that are too recent to be properly evaluated. The affidavit confirms that removed persons are not usually detained and that, if they are, the average length of detention is 5 days. The affidavit goes on to state that there is no reason to believe that such persons are treated badly during detention or that they are held in inhuman conditions. The State party thus maintains that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible and that, in the alternative, they do not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention.14 6.3 On 27 February 2010 the complainant submitted that, following the earthquake in Haiti, 29 hospitals and other health centres had been partially damaged or destroyed; and that he had tried to contact the Sacré-Coeur hospital in Port-au-Prince but to no avail, which suggested that the hospital had been at least partially destroyed. The earthquake had also brought about a major crisis in the justice system, since a large number of inmates had escaped from prison. The complainant also reiterated the arguments submitted previously. 6.4 On 9 March 2010, the complainant submitted a copy of a letter from a doctor at the Hôtel-Dieu hospital of the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal who considered that the only way to interrogate a Medtronic pacemaker without a Medtronic interrogation unit was to install a new Biotronik pacemaker in its place. However, in view of the risks accompanying all medical procedures, it would be prohibitive to replace a pacemaker designed to last more than eight years for the sole purpose of facilitating check-ups. It was therefore essential for the patient to have his check-ups performed at a place where Medtronic pacemakers could be interrogated. 6.5 On 16 March 2011, in response to the complainant’s most recent allegations, the State party submitted the medical opinion of a doctor approved by the High Commission of 13 14 GE.12-43638 See paragraph 5.4 above. Following the clarification provided by the State party, the Committee withdrew its request for interim measures on 28 December 2009. 9