6.1 In his reply, dated 20 February 1997, counsel describes as speculation the State
party's comments that, had he availed himself of the remedies referred to, the
author would have had an opportunity to demonstrate that the Government was
mistaken and to win his case.
6.2 He expresses surprise that the State party should argue that the author had not
exhausted all remedies, when the Government itself had summoned him to the
local immigration office to tell him to arrange for his departure. On that occasion,
an immigration official confirmed to the author that he must report for expulsion to
Liberia. Since that confirmation had been given by an immigration official
responsible for expulsions, the author was in no doubt that his deportation to
Liberia was imminent, and that it was to take place shortly after the first summons.
Indeed, if it had not been for the appeal lodged by the author with the Committee
against Torture, arrangements would have been made and the author would already
have been deported to Liberia without further delay. There is no doubt in the
applicant's mind – indeed, Canada's machinations in that regard were quite clear –
that the department responsible for expulsions was preparing to deport him.
6.3 It is submitted that the Canadian Government had every opportunity to remedy
its failure to meet its international obligations but that its bad faith and totally
negative attitude to the author's dossier was illustrative of its lack of will to assist
him. In that regard, counsel draws attention to the fact that the author had first
exhausted all the refugee status determination procedures, and that he had been
given a negative response. Moreover, the Canadian Government itself admits that
many applicants in the same circumstances as the author and from the same
country are granted refugee status.
6.4 Regarding the request made to the Federal Court for judicial review, counsel
explains that lodging such a request in no way guarantees success, as a very small
percentage of such requests are granted. Moreover, even if in theory applicants
have only to show that they have a "fairly arguable case", leave to appeal is granted
in fewer and fewer cases. In principle, that makes the appeal procedure in question
an illusion for the vast majority of refugees, including the author.
6.5 In any event, since the applicant was married, he had been advised to lodge a
request for sponsorship on grounds of marriage, which in view of his
circumstances had a good chance of success; but the request had not been
successful.
6.6 Regarding the State party's claims that the author had an alleged right to appeal
to the Federal Court, counsel states that in actual fact such appeals are nonexistent, time-barred or totally ineffective and illusory, since they are inaccessible
and discretionary and in no way prevent the Canadian Government from going
ahead with the deportation of the author in any event.