CAT/C/64/D/680/2015
the expertise of his former lawyers and that he had not understood the implications of
applying for a ministerial intervention, instead of applying to the Court. The Court
considered that it was well established that the complainant chose to pursue the ministerial
intervention, which was indicative of a decision to abandon the course that would seek
judicial review of the Refugee Review Tribunal decision. The Court also considered that
the complainant’s application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision had no prospect
of success, as the Tribunal was aware of the matters it was required to take into account
when assessing whether the complainant would be at a real risk if returned to Pakistan.
The complaint
3.1
The complainant submits that if he is returned to Pakistan he faces a real risk of
severe pain or torture from members of the Pakistani Taliban, based on the threats and
attacks he has suffered from them in the past. In addition, the authorities would not be in
position to protect him against the Taliban, as the Government’s inability to prevent or stop
gross human rights violations committed by the Taliban is public knowledge.
3.2
Furthermore, the complainant claims that there are substantial grounds to believe
that he would be at real risk if he is returned to Pakistan because, in addition to the
Taliban’s attacks referred to above, he is affiliated with the Awami National Party as a
peace committee member, which would make him an obvious target for the Taliban. The
complainant indicates that members of the Awami National Party have been targeted
throughout Pakistan, including his friend and fellow committee member, Naimat Ali Khan,
who was killed in an attack with assault weapons by unidentified militants on 12 June 2014.
3.3
The complainant indicates that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. He
further submits that he should not be required to appeal to the Federal Court because this
remedy is not effective, as his lawyers consider that it has no prospect of success. No new
events have occurred since the decision of the Federal Circuit Court to reject his appeal of
the Refugee Review Tribunal decision. Therefore, it was very likely that an appeal to the
Federal Court would have been dismissed as well. The complainant observes that, in any
case, this remedy is no longer available as the deadline to present such an appeal has
already passed.
Additional information from the complainant
4.
On 28 April 2015, the complainant submitted copies of his membership cards of the
Village Defence Committee of Koza Bandai and the Awami National Party. He also
presented copies of two letters confirming his participation in the Awami National Party,
one from the President of the Metrovil Ward in Karachi and one from the Chair of the
District Development Advisory Committee, Rahmat Ali Khan.
State party’s request to suspend
5.
In a note verbale of 31 August 2015, the State party informed the secretariat that, on
17 July 2015, the complainant had filed an application with the High Court of Australia and,
in the light of the ongoing domestic litigation related to the complainant’s communication,
the State party requested that the communication be suspended.
Complainant’s comments on the State party’s request
6.
On 3 November 2015, the complainant submitted comments on the State party’s
request to suspend. He confirmed that he had submitted an application to the High Court of
Australia, asking the court to issue a ruling that Australia was bound by its international
treaty obligations, specifically article 22 of the Convention, in the context of his current
interim measure requests. He noted that the application, which had been submitted by his
counsel, included two other cases submitted to the Committee against Torture, and that all
three were subject to interim measure requests to the State party. However, in all three
cases the State party had begun removal processes. He had been granted a bridging visa for
three months, but in the two other cases the complainants were being detained pending
removal. Since the Department of Immigration was threatening them with removal, on the
advice of counsel, he and the other complainants thought that some sort of domestic
3