claimant. On 10 January 1997, his application under the programme was
rejected.
2.6 On 16 January 1997, the author applied for judicial review of the
decision by the post-claim determination officer. On 8 July 1997, the
Federal Court of Canada rejected his request for judicial review. The author
was then taken into custody with a view to his being deported.
2.7 On 27 October 1997, the State party removed the author to Ghana.
According to counsel, as of 5 November 1999, the author was residing
without legal status in the Netherlands and wishes to continue with his
communication against Canada.
The complaint
3.1 The author states that he would be at risk of torture upon his return to
Ghana and that deportation by the Canadian authorities constitutes a
violation of the Convention.
3.2 In Canada, the risk assessment is made by immigration officers who,
according to the author, do not have the necessary competence in matters of
international human rights law or in other legal matters and do not fulfil the
basic criteria of impartiality and independence for taking such decisions.
The author also refers to a case of the European Court of Human Rights
(Chahal v. The United Kingdom) which indicates the legal guarantees that
must be respected by the country that is deporting:
"In such cases, given the irreversible nature of the harm that
might occur if the risk of ill-treatment materialized and the
importance the Court attaches to article 3, the notion of an
effective remedy under article 13 requires independent scrutiny
of the claim that there exist substantial grounds for fearing a
real risk of treatment contrary to article 3. This scrutiny must
be carried out without regard to what the person may gave
done to warrant expulsion or to any perceived threat to the
national security of the expelling State. ... Such scrutiny need
not be provided by a judicial authority but, if it is not, the
powers and guarantees which it affords are relevant to
determining whether the remedy before it is effective."
The author affirms that the State party's procedure of risk assessment violate
this mandatory "independent scrutiny". The same authorities that study the
relevance of the removal from Canadian territory proceed to the deportation
itself.

Select target paragraph3