CAT/C/27/D/166/2000

Communication No 166/2000 : Canada. 14/11/2001.

Convention Abbreviation: CAT

Committee Against Torture

Twenty-seventh session

12 - 23 November 2001

[PART OF ANNEX VII OF DOCUMENT A/57/44]

Views of the Committee Against Torture under article 22 of the

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

- Twenty-seventh session -

Communication No. 166/2000

The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture

and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

Meeting on 14 November 2001,

Having concluded its consideration of communication No. 166/2000, submitted to the

Committee against Torture under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel,

Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,

Having taken into account all information made available to it by the petitioner and the State

party,

Adopts it Views under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention.

CAT/C/27/D/166/2000. (Jurisprudence)

Submitted by:

B.S. (name withheld)

[represented by counsel]

Alleged victim:

The petitioner

State party:

Canada

Date of communication:

22 April 1999

Page 1 of 6

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr...

26.02.2008

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005...

1.1 The petitioner is B.S., an Iranian national, currently residing in Vancouver, Canada. He

claims that his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would entail a violation of article 3 of

the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or

Punishment by Canada. He is represented by counsel.

1.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Committee brought the

communication to the attention of the State party on 21 July 2000. At the same time, acting

under rule 108, paragraph 9, of its rules of procedure, the Committee requested the State party

not to expel the petitioner to the Islamic Republic of Iran while his communication was being

considered. The State party acceded to this request.

The facts as submitted by the petitioner

2.1 On 2 August 1990, the petitioner arrived in Canada. He was granted refugee status by

decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board on 11 January 1996.

2.2 Since 1992, the petitioner was convicted of various criminal offences, including theft,

uttering threats, assault, will to cause personal injury, false pretences, sexual assault,

obstructing a peace officer and altering a forged document. Restraining orders were issued

against the petitioner in 1997 and 1998. On 15 January 1999, the Minister of Citizenship and

Immigration's delegate issued an opinion pursuant to sections 70 (5) and 53 (1) of the

Immigration Act that the petitioner constitutes a danger to the public in Canada due to the

number and nature of criminal convictions acquired by the applicant in Canada since 1992. A

deportation order was issued against the petitioner on 1 March 1999.

2.3 On 15 April 1999, the petitioner filed an application for leave and judicial review of the

decision to remove him to Iran. The Federal Court dismissed the application on 12 July 2000.

The Federal Court had denied his application for leave and for judicial review of the decision

that he constituted a danger to the public on 14 July 1999. Counsel submits that all effective

domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the petitioner expects his deportation any

time.

2.4 The petitioner alleges that he fled persecution in Iran in July 1990. He submits that, in

early 1985, while in high school, he had been arrested and questioned by Revolutionary

Guards about his participation in political discussions. The Petitioner was held for eight days

during which he was beaten, punched, kicked, and tortured. In September 1984, the

petitioner's family home was raided by Revolutionary Guards after siblings left Iran because of

perceived involvement with the pro-monarchist movement. The petitioner alleges that he was

held for 18 days and that his sister, his mother, and he himself were beaten. In January 1985,

while serving in the military, the petitioner was suspected of political activity and detained and

questioned by an officer of the Ideological/Religious Department of the Army for two days.

The petitioner submits that he was forced to witness the execution of six soldiers convicted of

opposing the regime and its war efforts. In April 1985, the petitioner was wounded by a

grenade and released from the army, after treatment in a military hospital, in February 1986. In

October 1989, the petitioner was arrested by Revolutionary Guards, handcuffed and taken to

the offices of the branch of police that deals with anti-revolutionary offences (Komiteh), where

he was allegedly beaten and held for one month. In March and April 1990, the Komiteh again

detained the petitioner for 24 hours each time. After the second arrest, the petitioner was

ordered to report daily to the Komiteh office. The petitioner submits that every time he

reported to the office, he was afraid that the police officers would kill or torture him. After

four or five days, the petitioner fled to Bandar Abbas, obtained a false passport and fled Iran

by plane. In 1993 a summons was published in the Iranian newspaper Khabar indicating that

the petitioner had been charged with escape and was requested to report to the Investigation

Branch of the General Prosecutor's Office in Shiraz.

Page 2 of 6

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr...

26.02.2008

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005...

2.5 The petitioner submits that he fears for his life and safety if he is returned to Iran.

Furthermore, the Iranian authorities would be alerted to his return, because the petitioner

would require travel documents issued by Iran. The petitioner alleges that the State party did

not assess the risks he faced upon his return. The petitioner alleges also that he has never been

assessed for determining the likelihood that he will commit more crimes.

The complaint

3. The petitioner claims that his forced return to Iran would violate articles 3 and 16 of the

Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He

argues that there are substantive grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being

subjected to torture when deported, because he had been tortured before he left Iran and

because he would probably be detained and severely punished for his refusal to comply with

the daily reporting obligations of the Komiteh. The petitioner claims further that refugees and

refugee claimants are at risk of torture upon their return to Iran.

State party's observations on admissibility and merits

4.1 The State party submits that the petitioner has not exhausted all effective domestic

remedies. The State party argues that the petitioner has failed to seek a ministerial exemption

on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under subsection 114 (2) of the Canadian

Immigration Act and section 2.1 of its Immigration Regulations. This remedy would have

enabled the petitioner to apply to the Minister on Citizenship and Immigration at any time for

an exemption from the requirements of the immigration legislation or for admission to Canada

on compassionate or humanitarian grounds. The State party recalls the earlier findings of the

Committee that humanitarian and compassionate applications are an available and effective

domestic remedy.(1)

4.2 The State party submits further that the petitioner's claim of violations of his rights

established by articles 3 and 16 of the Convention are not substantiated. The petitioner did not

establish prima facie that there are substantial grounds for believing that his deportation would

have the foreseeable consequence of exposing him to a real and personal risk of being tortured

if returned to Iran. The isolated past incident of torture does not establish such a risk of torture

upon his return. The State party argues that the petitioner has only alleged to have been

tortured on occasion of his first detention in 1984, but not in any of the subsequent detentions.

His last two detentions lasted only for 24 hours and the petitioner was released with only an

obligation to report daily. The State party concludes that the treatment of the petitioner

followed a pattern of decreasing severity and that today he is not of interest for the authorities

in Iran.

4.3 The State party submits that given the Committee's interpretation of article 3 as offering

absolute protection irrespective of an individual's past conduct, the determination of the risk

must be particularly rigorous. In this regard, the State party submits that a risk assessment was

conducted when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration's delegate considered whether

the petitioner was a danger to the public and should be removed from Canada. A new

assessment by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in preparation of the response

of the State party to the Committee confirmed the earlier finding that the petitioner is not at

risk of torture if removed to Iran. The State party argues, in this regard, that the Committee

should not substitute its own findings for those of the national proceedings since they did not

disclose abuse of process, bad faith, manifest bias or irregularities. It is for the national courts

of the States parties to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case and the Committee

should not become a "fourth instance" competent to re-evaluate findings of fact or review the

application of domestic legislation.

Page 3 of 6

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr...

26.02.2008

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005...

4.4 With regard to the risk of being tortured upon his return, the State party submits that the

facts in the present petition are similar to those in communication No. 36/1995, X. v. The

Netherlands. The petitioner has not provided any medical evidence with regard to the alleged

ill-treatment in 1984. The State party argues further that the petitioner did not indicate that,

after September 1984 or because of his departure, any member of his family in Iran were

victims of retribution by Iranian authorities because of the petitioner's alleged political

opinion. The State party submits, in addition, that the summons in itself does not establish that

the petitioner would be at risk of being tortured. The "notice to appear" acts, in criminal cases,

as an official notification that the participation of the person named is required in an

investigation, either as a witness or an accused. Nothing supports the conclusion that the

summons was issued for alleged political crimes. Furthermore, the petitioner has not provided

any evidence that the Iranian authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest due to his failure

to respond to the summons, nor did he indicate that he is still obligated to report under the

summons.

4.5 With regard to the general situation in Iran, the State party submits that important changes

have occurred since 1984, including the establishment of a Department of Human Rights

within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the

election of Mr. Khatami as President. Furthermore, the latest Canadian Immigration and

Refugee Board's publication on Iran has explained that the safety of return depends on the

interpretation of general governmental policy by local authorities and, therefore, the mere

allegation of a risk of torture because the petitioner is a refugee is insufficient to establish that

he would personally face a risk of torture. The State party argues that the existence of a pattern

of human rights violations in a country is not sufficient to determine that a particular person

would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

Comments by the petitioner

5.1 The petitioner submits that a decision to grant a minister's permit or an exemption under

section 114 (2) of the Immigration Act is entirely discretionary and executive. He would not

be eligible for landing in Canada or given the required minister's permit because of his

convictions for sexual assault. The petitioner submits that the State party would not exercise

its discretion in his favour. The only decision the petitioner could apply to review would be the

decision to remove him to Iran. He filed a judicial review on this very issue, but the Federal

Court denied his application. Therefore, counsel argues that the remedies suggested by the

State party cannot be regarded effective domestic remedies.

5.2 The petitioner further submits that the cases referred by the State part are either easily

distinguishable from the present case or entirely off the point. He submits that in P.Q.L. v.

Canada,(2) the Committee found that all domestic remedies had been exhausted despite the

fact that the petitioner could have made an application for humanitarian and compassionate

relief.

5.3 The petitioner submits that he satisfies the factors listed in the Committee's general

comment on article 3. Furthermore, the Committee should have no confidence in the accuracy

of the original risk assessment as the process did not involve an independent decision-maker,

an oral hearing, rules of evidence or, at the time of the decision in the present case, written

reason. The second risk assessment was made without the knowledge or participation of the

petitioner and relies almost entirely on the research conducted by another office of the State

party's immigration office.

5.4 The petitioner submits that the Convention Refugee Determination Division accepted the

allegations of torture set out in the petition. The petitioner is a Convention refugee and was

found to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran. The conclusion that the summons

Page 4 of 6

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr...

26.02.2008

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005...

was, in fact, a "notice to appear" is unreliable, since the State party relies on information

obtained during a telephone interview with an unnamed lawyer in Tehran, who, apparently,

did not see the summons. The petitioner further asks the Committee to consider what treatment

he will receive should the Iranian authorities discover that he was convicted of sexual assault

in Canada.

5.5 With regard to the general situation of human rights in Iran, the petitioner points to reports

by Human Rights Watch in 1999 and the United States Department of State in 2000 and

submits that while there have been some potentially positive developments, little has changed

to date and human rights conditions may have actually deteriorated.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Examination of admissibility

6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against

Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the

Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph

5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under

another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

6.2 The Committee notes that the State party considers the communication inadmissible for

lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In its risk opinion of 11 August 2000, the

Department of Citizenship and Immigration denied a risk of torture if the petitioner is removed

to Iran; the Committee notes that the same governmental body would determine a decision on

a humanitarian or compassionate application or a minister's permit. The Committee notes

further that the petitioner's applications for leave and judicial review of the decisions to

remove him to Iran and that he constitutes a danger to the public had been denied by the

Federal Court; the same could would be responsible for reviewing a decision on a

humanitarian or compassionate application or a minister's permit. Therefore, the Committee

finds that, in the petitioner's situation, a humanitarian or compassionate application under

section 114 (2) of the Immigration Act or a minister's permit would not constitute a remedy

likely to bring relief, which should still be exhausted for purposes of admissibility. The

Committee, therefore, considers that the conditions laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of

the Convention have been met.

6.3 The Committee notes that the State party considers the communication inadmissible for

lack of sufficient substantiation. The Committee is of the opinion that the State party's

arguments raise only substantive issues, which should be dealt with at the merits and not the

admissibility stage. Since the Committee sees no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares

the communication admissible.

Consideration of the merits

7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the petitioner to the Islamic

Republic of Iran would violate the obligation of Canada under article 3 of the Convention not

to expel or return a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing

that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.

7.2 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, whether

there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged victim would be in danger of being

subjected to torture upon return to Iran. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take

into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention,

including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human

Page 5 of 6

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr...

26.02.2008

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005...

rights. The aim of the termination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned

would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she

would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass

violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for

determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his

return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned

would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of

human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being

subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.

7.3 In the present case, the Committee notes that the petitioner has claimed that, during his

first detention in early 1985, he was tortured. Although not explicitly corroborated by medical

evidence or detained submission by the petitioner, the Committee is prepared to consider that

the petitioner may have been maltreated during his first detention. The Committee also notes

that the petitioner has not claimed that he was tortured during his subsequent detentions.

Finally, the Committee notes that the periods of the two latest detentions in 1990 were short,

that the petitioner has not claimed that he was ever an active political opponent and that there

is no indication that he is being sought by the authorities in Iran at the present time or would

be at a particular risk of being tortured for reason of his Canadian criminal record. Therefore,

the Committee considers that the petitioner has not substantiated his claim that he will be

personally at risk of being subjected to torture if he is returned to Iran.

7.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16 of the Convention, the Committee notes

that article 3 of the Convention does not encompass situations of ill-treatment envisaged by

article 16, and further finds that the petitioner has not substantiated a claim that he would face

such treatment upon return to Iran as would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment with the meaning of article 1 of the Convention.

Conclusions

8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes

that the removal of B.S. to the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the basis of the information

submitted, would not entail a breach of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention.

Notes

1. The State party makes reference to P.S.S. v. Canada, case No. 66/1997; R.K. v. Canada,

case No. 42/1996; L.O. v. Canada, case No. 95/1997.

2. Case No. 57/1996.

©1996-2001

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Geneva, Switzerland

Page 6 of 6

United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr...

26.02.2008

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005...