CCPR/C/125/D/2323/2013
The complaint
3.1
The authors submit that, by forcibly returning them and their children to Romania,
the Canadian authorities would be in violation of their rights under articles 3, 6 (1), 7, 9 (1),
17 (1), 24 (1), 26 and 27 of the Covenant.
3.2
Based on their experience, they allege that, if returned to Romania, they and their
two minor children would be persecuted due to their Roma origin. The situation of Roma in
Romania is extremely dangerous and they are persecuted on a regular basis. If returned, the
authors would be put in an extremely vulnerable situation, with their safety and life in great
danger.3 They also point out that the State party granted refugee status to M.Z.’s father on 8
November 1999, as well as to other members of his family.
3.3
Finally, the authors allege that, following the amendment of the Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act on 15 December 2012, asylum seekers cannot file an application
for pre-removal risk assessment unless 12 months have passed since the rejection of the
asylum request. The authors could not avail themselves of the pre-removal risk assessment.
Therefore, domestic remedies have been exhausted. In addition, there is no true appeal on
the merits of an Immigration and Refugee Board decision, because the Federal Court rejects
90 per cent of the applications for leave and judicial review and, even if an application is
admitted, questions of credibility and appreciation of evidence are only reviewed on a
standard of “reasonableness” rather than on a standard of “correctness”, as would be the
case in a true appeal on the merits. Thus, the authors have never been afforded a fair
opportunity to contest the merits of the negative decision by the Immigration and Refugee
Board.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
On 17 June 2014, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the
merits. It considers that the authors’ allegations are inadmissible for two reasons: nonsubstantiation, and incompatibility of some of the allegations with the provisions of the
Covenant.
4.2
The authors’ communication to the Committee is based on the same facts and
evidence as were presented to the Immigration and Refugee Board. The State party argues
that the whole communication is inadmissible on the grounds of insufficient substantiation,
because the authors have not explained how any of their rights would be violated by their
removal. Their story is not credible; there are important omissions and contradictions
concerning central elements of their claim.
4.3
Regarding the claims made by F.Z. of ill-treatment by the police on 16 July 2010
and by three private individuals on a bus in 2009, the Board noted that he had not
mentioned the two events in his initial application for protection. When asked about this
omission, he stated that he did not remember what he had declared upon his arrival in
Canada. He also did not provide any medical documentation regarding these claims. 4
Therefore, the Board did not believe that he had been aggressed by the police in 2010 or by
private persons in 2009.
4.4
Moreover, the Board observed that, in his first application form completed upon
arrival in Canada, while still at the airport, F.Z. alleged that he had been beaten by three
private persons in 2002 and had needed hospitalization for 45 days, 5 but mentioned no other
3
4
5
The authors refer to the “2012 country reports on human rights practices: Romania”, of the United
States Department of State (19 April 2013), available at
www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2012/eur/204330.htm), in which it is stated that major human rights
problems affect the Roma population, such as police mistreatment and harassment, as well as societal
discrimination.
He declared that after having been beaten by the police, he did not go to the hospital to get a medical
certificate that he could use as evidence for his complaint against the police.
He produced a medical report dated 9 April 2001. He declared that the police had made an official
assessment of the event, but that he did not follow up on this with the authorities because he was
afraid of the police.
3