CAT/C/29/D/119/1998
page 5
3.5
In response to the Canadian authorities’ argument that he lived without any problem in
Honduras for a few years following his detention, the complainant also states that he cannot be
blamed for having tried to stay in his country.
3.6
With regard to the situation in Honduras, the complainant stresses that, although a
democratic regime now exists, the military is still a “sub-State”. As proof of this affirmation, the
complainant refers to various reports by Amnesty International and FIDH (International
Federation of Human Rights). In its 1997 report, Amnesty International indicates that at least
five former members of the National Investigation Department were killed in circumstances
suggesting extrajudicial execution; one of them was supposed to testify about a murder
reportedly committed by members of that Department in 1994. The complainant also
indicates that Honduras is one of the only countries to have been censured many times by the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights and refers, in particular, to the Velásquez Rodríguez
case, which involved the disappearance of a student and in connection with which the impunity
enjoyed by some members of the military in Honduras was sharply criticized.
State party’s observations on the admissibility of the complaint
4.1
The State party transmitted its observations on the admissibility of the complaint by a
note verbale dated 15 September 2000.
4.2
The State party maintains that the complainant did not exhaust all domestic remedies
before submitting his complaint to the Committee. More specifically, he did not request leave to
apply to the Federal Court for a judicial review of the decision not to grant him humanitarian
status.
4.3
The State party recalls in this connection that all decisions taken by the Canadian
authorities concerning immigration are subject to judicial review. The complainant has,
moreover, availed himself of this remedy twice before, during the proceedings which he initiated
to obtain refugee status.
4.4
The State party also submits that this remedy is still open to the complainant even though
there is normally a time limit of 15 days for filing a request. The law in fact allows for this
deadline to be extended when special grounds are adduced to justify the delay. It should also be
noted that, if this possibility of seeking a remedy had been used, the law furthermore allowed for
any decision of the Federal Court to be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal and likewise to
the Supreme Court of Canada.
4.5
In support of its arguments, the State party refers to the decision taken by the Committee
in the R. K. v. Canada case (CAT/C/19/D/42/1996), where it had deemed that the complaint
should be declared inadmissible on the ground of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies because
the complainant had not made an application for a judicial review challenging the rejection of the
request for asylum and had furthermore not filed an application for humanitarian status. In the
P. S. v. Canada case (CAT/C/23/D/86/1997), also cited by the State party, the Committee had in
particular deemed that the fact that the complainant had, inter alia, failed to enter an application
for a judicial review was contrary to the principle of the exhaustion of domestic remedies. The

Select target paragraph3