CAT/C/39/D/304/2006 Page 4 2.5 The judge also had doubts about the correct age of the complainant’s companion and did not accept her explanation that the Mexican police had misread the details on his voting card. The judge is also said to have noted that, according to the complainant, B. was running for the office of Governor of Mexico State, whereas, she says, she has always stated that he was running for the office of Governor of Netzhuacoyotl.2 Thus the Refugee Protection Division had again evaluated the evidence in an arbitrary fashion. 2.6 The complainants provide a copy of their request to the Federal Court for judicial review of the Refugee Protection Division denial of their application. They consider the request to be very brief, that it fails to mention the translation error, and that neither their lawyer at the time nor the judge had taken sufficient time to examine their application. 2.7 The complainants argue that these errors - lack of thorough consideration, mistakes in translation, etc. - were disastrous for them, yet they cannot be blamed for the errors, which were made by others. Furthermore, the B. family is a powerful one and has connections with powerful and corrupt politicians in Mexico. The complainants’ lives would thus be in danger there. The complaint 3. The complainants assert that their forcible return to Mexico would constitute a violation by Canada of their rights under article 3 of the Convention. State party’s observations 4.1 The State party submitted its observations on 17 April 2007. It recalls that the Committee has consistently held that it is not for the Committee to examine the evaluation of the facts and evidence at the national level unless that evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or the decision makers had acted in a partial manner, which was not the case here. The State party notes that the communication addresses exactly the same facts as those considered by the Canadian authorities that had concluded that the complainants were not credible. 4.2 The State party provides a detailed description of Canada’s asylum procedures. The complainants arrived in Canada on 26 November 2003 as visitors. On 22 December 2003 the complainant informed Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) that she wished to request asylum on behalf of the two of them. On 9 January 2004 her application was sent to the 2 In this regard, the complainant’s counsel states that the complainant’s level of education (five years of primary school) prevented her from understanding that a place like Netzhuacoyotl could not have a governor. Counsel provides a newspaper cutting dated 24 December 2002 which states that B. had been nominated as candidate in local elections due to take place in March 2003.