CAT/C/19/D/57/1996
page 5
the State party, sentences of life imprisonment or the death penalty may be
imposed only where there are aggravating circumstances, if the victim is
seriously injured or killed, none of which apply to the case in question. The
State party therefore maintains that there is no objective proof that offences
such as those committed by the author of the communication would entail the
death penalty or life imprisonment in China. The State also points out that
it has not informed the Chinese authorities of the author's convictions.
5.5
The State party notes that the documentary evidence annexed to the
author's arguments deals, not with the application of article 7 of the Chinese
Criminal Code, but with conditions of imprisonment in China. It does not
support a prima facie conclusion that the author would be accused, sentenced
or imprisoned.
5.6
The State party notes that the allegations submitted by the author to
the Ministry of Immigration are essentially the same as those adduced in
support of his communication to the Committee. It explains that the potential
danger to the author, should he return to China, was examined by a specially
trained official of the Ministry of Immigration, who concluded that the
author's particular circumstances did not constitute grounds for believing
that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment or
disproportionate sentences or of being executed in China. The Canadian
Government refers to the case law of the Human Rights Committee, according to
which “it is generally for domestic courts to assess facts and evidence in a
particular case, and for appellate courts of States parties to review the
assessment of such evidence by the lower courts. It is not for the Committee
to question the evaluation of the evidence by the domestic courts unless this
evaluation was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice”. 1/
The State party maintains that no proof of bad faith, manifest error or denial
of justice, that would justify the intervention of the Committee, has been
established in the case in question.
5.7
In conclusion, the Canadian Government asserts that the communication
should be rejected because it does not establish substantial grounds,
prima facie and on the merits, for believing that the author's expulsion to
China would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It argues
that the mere demonstration of the situation of human rights in a country is
not in itself sufficient to establish such substantial grounds. According to
the State party, the author's fear that he would be imprisoned or tortured
under article 7 of the Chinese Criminal Code is not substantiated by the
evidence submitted to the Committee. The State party submits that this
evidence does not provide substantial grounds for believing that article 7 of
the Chinese Criminal Code would be applied in his case or that it would be
applied in the manner he alleges and with the consequences he suggests. The
State party asks the Committee to reject the communication because it does not
establish the minimum basis necessary to ensure compatibility with article 22
of the Convention or, alternatively, because it is without merit.
Valentijn v. France, Communication No. 584/1994, paragraph 5.3,
1/
decision dated 22 July 1996.