CCPR/C/125/D/2238/2013
doubts about the documents they had presented as evidence, even though they had been
confirmed as valid by the Punjab Human Rights Organization, one of the main human
rights organizations in the Punjab. The authors brought both denials to the Federal Court
but were not granted judicial review in either case.
2.8
On 12 October 2012, the authors filed a new application for a pre-removal risk
assessment, alleging new evidence of the risk facing them if returned to India. The authors
submitted, as new evidence, a number of affidavits of prominent individuals and family
members from their area confirming the facts they claimed. 3 The new pre-removal risk
assessment application, however, was never considered because there is a legislative bar
against submitting a new case within the first 12 months after the receipt of a negative
decision. The new application submissions were therefore not eligible to be presented to the
Canadian asylum authorities until 5 April 2013.
2.9
On 4 March 2013, the authors filed an application for leave and for judicial review
of the removal decision against N.P.S.S., to postpone his removal. They also filed a motion
for a stay of their deportation. On 20 March 2013, the Federal Court refused to hear their
motion.
2.10 The authors claim that they have tried everything possible under domestic Canadian
law, which did not appear to provide an effective recourse to correct errors. They have also
submitted a request for a declaratory judgment on the one-year bar against filing a new preremoval risk assessment application.
2.11 Lastly, the authors informed the Committee that, in September 2011, a false criminal
case had been registered against N.P.S.S. in India for events that allegedly took place when
he was already in Canada. In October 2011, he was declared to be a proclaimed offender
under Indian law by the Subdivisional Court in Dasuya, allegedly putting him in great
danger of detention and torture if returned to India.4
The complaint
3.1
The authors submit that there is very strong evidence showing that they are still at
risk of severe mistreatment, torture and honour killing in India. 5
3.2
The authors claim that there is a violation of their right to due process and to an
effective remedy given that no avenue was provided for the presentation and review of new
evidence. The authors add that the denial of access to administrative or judicial relief
without evaluation of the new evidence does not respect the right to present one’s case
before the proper authority to seek justice.
3.3
The authors note that the prohibition of return to torture or to extrajudicial execution
is a fundamental right under international law and that this involves articles 6 and 7 of the
Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 of the Covenant.
3.4
The authors claim that the absence of any means of having a case considered on the
substance because of the one-year bar against pre-removal risk assessment 6 applications
after a decision deprives the authors of any effective recourse and violates article 13 of the
Covenant.
3.5
Lastly, the authors claim a violation of article 14 of the Covenant on the basis of the
“many violations of the right to a hearing and the right to an effective recourse”. In
3
4
5
6
The authors attach a letter of support from a Member of the Punjab Legislative Assembly and one
from the Punjab Human Rights Organization confirming the problem of honour killing and the system
of impunity around this crime in India.
The authors provide two documents in this regard: First Information Report No. 45 accusing N.P.S.S.
of having participated in an assault on another individual in September 2011 and a court document
declaring N.P.S.S. to be a proclaimed offender in the case described in First Information Report No.
45.
The authors provide a letter from the Punjab Human Rights Organization, dated 21 July 2012,
recommending that the authors be helped and not deported, given that “honour killing is a fact of life
in India, more so in North India”.
The authors refer to Committee against Torture, Singh v. Canada (CAT/C/46/D/319/2007).
3