CCPR/C/125/D/2034/2011 9.3 The State party also recalls that the authors obtained a building permit on 16 December 2013. However, in cases where the construction has begun without an inspection, the inspectors may require the permit holders to provide an engineer’s (or other qualified individual’s) report certifying that the construction complies with the Building Code Act and the approved permit plan. Although it is the permit holder’s responsibility to contact the city council in this regard, the city council’s Deputy Chief Building Official sent several letters to the authors in order to arrange inspection under section 10.2 of the Building Code Act. After a fourth letter, the authors finally responded, on 21 February 2014, without addressing the engineer’s report, or the request to arrange for an inspection, and instead accusing the Deputy Chief Building Official of acts of torture and inhuman or other degrading treatment. After another round of letters, the authors filed an appeal with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against Toronto City Council’s inspection order, basing their arguments on several human rights allegations. On 7 August 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice determined that Toronto City Council was entitled to inspect the two-storey addition, and directed the authors to provide the report of the construction and to arrange for inspection. It was highlighted in the judgment that the inspection would be carried out in a manner that would protect the health and safety of S.D.P.T. and Y.F.R.T. On 22 June 2016, the same court held a hearing to determine Toronto City Council’s entitlement to costs as the successful party, and determined that the authors must pay $20,000 in legal costs, recalling that the authors had “unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings”, failed to comply with procedural timetables and duties, provided arguments with no support in authority, “and forced Toronto to involve new counsel by making an unwarranted complaint as to the conduct of previous counsel”. The authors appealed against that judgment before a panel of three members of the Divisional Court of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, which found that the authors had principally renewed the arguments previously made, that the authors’ claim concerning arbitrariness and a lack of natural justice was without foundation, and that the allegations regarding violations of human rights or of constitutional rights were “completely devoid of merit”, ordering the authors to pay additional costs of $1,000. Later, the authors sought leave to appeal, which was dismissed. 9.4 As to the additional allegations made by the authors regarding violation of article 2 (3) of the Covenant, the State party submits that on 7 August 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addressed the authors’ allegation of Toronto City Council’s alleged torture and inhuman or other degrading treatment. Moreover, the State party submits that the authors provide no evidence of being deprived of an effective legal remedy. Indeed, the authors’ numerous legal proceedings provide evidence to the contrary. 9.5 Concerning the authors’ allegations of potential violations of article 6 (1), (2) and (5), the State party submits that article 6 (5) does not apply to the authors, as they are neither 18 years of age or younger, nor they are pregnant; moreover, the State party submits that paragraph 222 (5) (d) of the Criminal Code (on homicide) and section 142 of the Court of Justice Act (on enforcement in good faith of court orders), which ground the authors’ arguments around “domestic impunity legislation”, do not apply to the authors. The State party recalls that both the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and its Divisional Court suggested to the authors that if the presence of an inspector would disturb them, they should briefly vacate the property at the time of inspection. Moreover, the State party submits that Toronto City Council’s safety concerns are legitimate and that the authors’ view of the inspection as equivalent to a mock execution from waterboarding or a capital punishment execution from lethal gas is unsupported. 9.6 Regarding the authors’ allegations on violations of article 7 of the Covenant, the State party questions the medical report made by Dr. Roth, on the grounds that the report had already been addressed by the Ontario Municipal Board, which had challenged the impartiality, veracity and relevance of it. For example, it questions whether Dr. Roth was licensed to practise medicine in Ontario, and whether P.T., who is a party in the present communication, had acted as an interpreter of her parents’ statements for Dr. Roth’s report. Moreover, the authors later submitted another medical report, made by Dr. Ho, which gave findings that were inconsistent with those of the previous report. Finally, regarding the imposition of judicial fees by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the State party submits 12