2.4 The owner of the place where he was staying helped him to flee to Canada,
where he arrived on 8 February 1993. On 26 February 1994, the author married a
Canadian woman; a child was born on 19 April 1995.
2.5 Immediately after arriving in Canada, the author requested political asylum. On
20 April 1994, his application was dismissed by the Immigration and Refugee
Board of Canada. The author applied to the Federal Court of Canada for leave to
appeal against the Board's decision. The Court rejected his request. On 15
December 1995, a request lodged by the applicant in pursuance of the post-claim
risk assessment process was rejected. The author was told to leave the country
before 22 February 1996.
2.6 It further appears from the communication that the author's wife is sponsoring
his application for immigration to Canada. On 20 December 1995, the immigration
authorities rejected the author's request for his expulsion to be suspended pending
the outcome of the procedure for examination of the immigration application,
which was already under way. The author complains that the Canadian authorities
refuse to accept the bona fide character of his marriage. Immigration officials are
said to have consistently refused to grant his wife an interview to prove the validity
of the marriage.
The complaint
3.1 According to the author, if he returns to Liberia he will be killed like his uncle.
To substantiate his statements concerning the serious human rights violations
occurring in Liberia, where several factions are confronting one another, the author
quotes several extracts from a report by Amnesty International, as well as Country
Reports on Human Rights Practices from 1994.
3.2 The author claims that his return to Liberia would constitute a violation of
article 3 of the Convention against Torture by Canada. He requests the Committee
to ask Canada not to expel him while his communication is under consideration by
the Committee.
Comments of the State party
4. On 19 March 1996, the Committee forwarded the communication to the State
party through its Special Rapporteur to enable it to draw up its comments, and
requested it not to expel the author while his communication was under
consideration by the Committee; the request was granted.
5.1 In a note dated 9 September 1996, the State party contests the admissibility of
the communication. It points out that the author had not exhausted the domestic
remedies available before submitting his communication to the Committee against
Torture. In addition, his communication did not demonstrate the minimum

Select target paragraph3