justification needed to meet the requirements of article 22 of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
5.2 The State party explains that throughout the Canadian immigration process, the
author essentially advanced the same allegations as those he is putting forward in
support of his communication to the Committee against Torture. He claimed that
his uncle had been a member of ULIMO and had been killed by the NPFL, an
armed faction which opposed it, on account of his political activities. The author
claimed that, because of his relationship with his uncle, his life or his safety would
be in danger if he returned to Liberia. Specifically, he feared that he would be
tortured.
5.3 The State party points out that the investigations carried out by the Canadian
authorities revealed major gaps concerning fundamental and crucial aspects of the
author's claims. It was impossible to establish that he was of Liberian origin and
that his return to Liberia would entail genuine risks for his life or his safety.
Inconsistencies in his statements seriously undermined his credibility and
compounded an absence of objective proof of his allegations.
5.4 The State party holds that various domestic remedies were open to the author to
challenge the conclusions of the Canadian authorities. Those remedies, had he
availed himself of them, would have enabled him to demonstrate as far as possible
that the inconsistencies noted in his statements were merely apparent, and that his
claims were backed up by a rational explanation of which those responsible for
taking a decision on his case were unaware. Yet he had not maintained and pursued
a request for judicial review by the Federal Court, and he had not made a request
for judicial review by the Federal Court of two other decisions taken by the
Canadian authorities. Nor had he made any request for a ministerial waiver on
humanitarian grounds.
5.5 The remedies, had the author pursued them, might have brought him relief
within a reasonable time limit. All of them offered him a chance to correct and
explain the gaps in his dossier before the date of application of the expulsion
measure against him, and the remedies ultimately held out the possibility that he
would be able to settle in Canada.
5.6 The State party claims that, because of Mr. Rollo's failure to pursue those
remedies before appealing to the Committee against Torture, his communication
fails to satisfy the condition set out in article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
It calls on the Committee to declare the communication inadmissible.
Counsel's comments

Select target paragraph3