CAT/C/36/D/273/2005
Page 3
reviewed at the request of the State party in light of information and comments from the State
party and the complainant.
1.3 By submission of 21 December 2005, the State Party requested that the admissibility of
the complaint be examined separately from the merits. On 26 January 2006, the Special
Rapporteur on New Communications and Interim Measures granted the State party’s request,
pursuant to Rule 109, paragraph 3 of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure.
The facts as presented by the complainant:
2.1 The complainant was involved in student demonstrations while attending the University
of Hlaing, Myanmar, in 1998. In November 1998 he was involved in a demonstration where
he was detained and questioned. In detention, the complainant alleges that the police made
him sign a document stating that if he was caught in anti-government activities again, he
would be detained indefinitely. After his release, he was interrogated on several occasions
and he knew that the government was monitoring his activities. In 2001 the complainant
distributed documents relating to human rights abuses, although he did not belong to a
democracy organization. He was not caught distributing these documents. In 2001 a friend of
the complainant founded a soccer (football) association (‘union’) and asked him to join. The
complainant agreed and recruited more members to play soccer. At the time in Myanmar
such associations or unions were not allowed.
2.2 In January 2002 the complainant was granted a visa to study English at the Global
Village School in Vancouver, Canada. He arrived in Canada on 14 December 2002, on a
student visa.
2.3 In February 2003 he applied for refugee status after his mother had informed him that
the Government of Myanmar was looking for him for distributing anti-government literature.
She told him that the authorities had detained his father and interrogated him about the
complainant’s activities. His mother also told him that one of his friends had been arrested.
2.4 The complainant’s application for refugee status was dismissed on 25 September 2003.
Counsel explains that the complainant did not hig hlight that he was a member of a soccer
‘union’ at the time of his application for refugee status, as he thought that ‘relevant
organizations’ for the purposes of the application meant political organizations, not sporting
organizations. He did not consider at the time that he was at risk for his involvement in the
soccer ‘union’, and only learned of a warrant for his arrest based on his involvement in the
soccer ‘union’ at a later stage. On 20 July 2004 the complainant made submissions under the
pre-remova l risk assessment (PRRA) procedure, including new evidence in the form of a
letter from his father and a copy of the warrant for his arrest dated 29 December 2003. The
PRRA was denied on 17 September 2004. At the hearing on 29 September 2004 the
complainant was advised to return by 7 October 2004 with an itinerary to return to Myanmar.
He was scheduled to leave Canada on 26 October 2004.
2.5 The complainant applied for leave and judicial review of the PRRA decision before the
Federal Court of Canada on 14 October 2004, which was due to be heard on 25 October 2004.
In the meantime, on 22 October 2004 a consent agreement was reached between the
complainant and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. As part of the agreement, the
complainant was required to provide new PRRA submissions by 5 November 2004, which
was extended to 26 November 2004, while a stay of deportation was granted on 22 October