CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014
decision on the author’s danger opinion, including the supporting documentation the author
submitted. As at 13 March 2015, a decision on the author’s request for reconsideration
remained outstanding.1
2.5
The author submits that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic
remedies. He indicates that the same subject matter is not being examined under another
procedure of international investigation or settlement.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims that if forcibly returned to Somalia, he runs a serious risk of being
deprived of his life and subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7 (1) of the Covenant. He faces that risk owing
to his family’s prominent political profile, which resulted in part from his half-brother’s
public criticism of Al-Shabaab, and because he is a returnee from the West who grew up in
Canada, and would not have any family or clan protection in Somalia. He would face a risk
of forced recruitment or of accusation of spying by Al-Shabaab. The situation in
Mogadishu, despite the withdrawal of Al-Shabaab in early August 2011, is far from stable
and is not safe. The author cannot relocate anywhere in southern or central Somalia or seek
refuge in either of the country’s semi-autonomous regions because he is not from there and
would be considered an outsider and a threat. He argues that the risk assessment of the
danger that the individual faces if returned should not be limited to the assessment of the
personalized risk, but should take into account the general risk of torture or cruel and
unusual treatment or punishment faced by the population in general. The author refers to
the Committee’s jurisprudence in Warsame v. Canada, in which it found that the forced
removal to Somalia of the author, who was also a young man who had been raised in
Canada, would breach his rights under articles 6 (1), 7, 17 and 23 (1), read in conjunction
with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. 2
3.2
The author claims that his deportation to Somalia would constitute arbitrary and
unlawful interference with his family life, contrary to articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant.
His family ties would be irreparably severed if he were deported to Somalia, as his family
could not visit him there and the means of maintaining regular correspondence between him
and his family are limited. 3 Moreover, for a significant period of time, it would be
impossible for him to apply for a visitor’s visa for Canada to visit his family. He has lived
in Canada for over 20 years and does not have any connection to Somalia other than his
nationality. His mother, sisters and brothers all reside in Canada. His mother is very ill, and
the author, before he was detained, was his mother’s primary caregiver, taking care of both
housework and her health, as the other siblings and family in Canada do not have the time
to help her. Therefore, his deportation would interfere with the daily support and care he
provides to his ailing mother. He has a significant network of family friends and role
models, many of whom have provided written statements of their support. Consequently, he
claims that in case of deportation to Somalia, he would be deprived of all family ties and
support, which would result in drastic interference with his family life. He refers to the
Committee’s jurisprudence according to which such interference would be disproportionate
to the legitimate aims pursued by the State party, namely the prevention of criminal
offences. He adds that most of his criminal convictions relate to alcohol abuse, and that his
family has attested to the positive changes they have seen in him to that regard.
3.3
Furthermore, the author alleges a violation of articles 12 (4), 13 and 18 of the
Covenant, in part by reference to the Warsame v. Canada case, without providing
additional substantiation.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 13 March 2015, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility
and merits of the communication. It submits that the author has an extensive criminal
1
2
3
GE.17-03930
There is no statutory stay of removal associated with a request for reconsideration.
See communication No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011.
See Warsame v. Canada, para. 8.10. See also communication No. 1792/2008, Dauphin v. Canada,
Views adopted on 28 July 2009, paras. 8.3-8.4.
3