CAT/C/46/D/395/2009
flagrant violations of their rights. The complainant adds that the Secretary-General of the
United Nations stressed in one of his reports2 that Hizbullah’s maintenance of a
paramilitary capacity posed a key challenge to the Lebanese Government. The Lebanese
security forces are thus unable to contain Hizbullah and are not in a position to prevent
violations against the complainant.
3.2
The complainant claims that the expulsion order is disproportionate to his crime, and
that it contradicts the expert opinion that there is only a moderate risk of his reoffending.
He also submits that his crime was an isolated incident committed in a state of inebriation
and depression in the wake of his marriage break-up.
State party’s observations on admissibility and merits
4.1
In a note dated 14 December 2009, the State party contests the admissibility of the
complaint on the grounds that it is incompatible with the Convention, that it is
insufficiently substantiated and that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. With
regard to the merits, the State party denies any violation of article 3 of the Convention.
4.2
The State party recalls that the complainant, who obtained refugee status in 1998
and permanent resident status in Canada in 2000, was found guilty of aggravated assault
and sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment on top of the 25 months already spent in pretrial
detention. As a consequence of this conviction, CBSA issued a criminal inadmissibility
report in respect of the complainant and transmitted his case to the Immigration Division of
the Immigration and Refugee Board for investigation. On 25 April 2008, following a
hearing at which the complainant was given the opportunity to speak, the Immigration
Division determined that in accordance with domestic legislation,3 the complainant should
be effectively prohibited from Canadian territory owing to serious crime, and issued an
expulsion order against him. As a result of this expulsion order, the complainant lost his
permanent resident status in Canada. He appealed against the decision before the
Immigration Appeal Division, but his appeal was rejected on the grounds of lack of
jurisdiction.
4.3
When CBSA apprised the complainant of its intention to seek an Opinion from the
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism regarding the danger the
complainant might pose to the Canadian public, the complainant was told that he could,
within the next 15 days, submit written comments and documentary evidence concerning
the risks he would run if deported to Lebanon. The complainant refused to acknowledge
receipt of this letter. On 8 August 2008, the complainant’s counsel asked CBSA to extend
the deadline for submitting written comments. This extension was refused since the request
had already been transferred to the Minister. Counsel was, however, told that she could
submit comments directly to the Minister. On 11 February 2009, CBSA provided the
complainant with another opportunity to submit comments, but the complainant did not do
so. Thus, at the time of issuance of the Minister’s Opinion, on 20 March 2009, the
complainant had still not submitted his comments on the risk to which he would be exposed
if deported to Lebanon. The Minister accordingly based his Opinion on the information at
his disposal and concluded that there was no risk of violation of article 3 of the Convention.
Based on several documentary sources, the Minister’s Opinion determined that since the
end of the civil war in Lebanon in 1990, Hizbullah had not posed any danger to the civilian
population, particularly to the Shiite community.4 The State party stresses that the
2
3
4
4
Press release SC/9653, 7 May 2009.
IRPA, para. 36 (1) (a).
These documentary sources included a report of the Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN)
of 17 December 2008, the United States Department of State report for 2008, a report of the
GE.11-43850