United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr... Page 4 of 6
4.4 With regard to the risk of being tortured upon his return, the State party submits that the
facts in the present petition are similar to those in communication No. 36/1995, X. v. The
Netherlands. The petitioner has not provided any medical evidence with regard to the alleged
ill-treatment in 1984. The State party argues further that the petitioner did not indicate that,
after September 1984 or because of his departure, any member of his family in Iran were
victims of retribution by Iranian authorities because of the petitioner's alleged political
opinion. The State party submits, in addition, that the summons in itself does not establish that
the petitioner would be at risk of being tortured. The "notice to appear" acts, in criminal cases,
as an official notification that the participation of the person named is required in an
investigation, either as a witness or an accused. Nothing supports the conclusion that the
summons was issued for alleged political crimes. Furthermore, the petitioner has not provided
any evidence that the Iranian authorities have issued a warrant for his arrest due to his failure
to respond to the summons, nor did he indicate that he is still obligated to report under the
summons.
4.5 With regard to the general situation in Iran, the State party submits that important changes
have occurred since 1984, including the establishment of a Department of Human Rights
within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and of the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the
election of Mr. Khatami as President. Furthermore, the latest Canadian Immigration and
Refugee Board's publication on Iran has explained that the safety of return depends on the
interpretation of general governmental policy by local authorities and, therefore, the mere
allegation of a risk of torture because the petitioner is a refugee is insufficient to establish that
he would personally face a risk of torture. The State party argues that the existence of a pattern
of human rights violations in a country is not sufficient to determine that a particular person
would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
Comments by the petitioner
5.1 The petitioner submits that a decision to grant a minister's permit or an exemption under
section 114 (2) of the Immigration Act is entirely discretionary and executive. He would not
be eligible for landing in Canada or given the required minister's permit because of his
convictions for sexual assault. The petitioner submits that the State party would not exercise
its discretion in his favour. The only decision the petitioner could apply to review would be the
decision to remove him to Iran. He filed a judicial review on this very issue, but the Federal
Court denied his application. Therefore, counsel argues that the remedies suggested by the
State party cannot be regarded effective domestic remedies.
5.2 The petitioner further submits that the cases referred by the State part are either easily
distinguishable from the present case or entirely off the point. He submits that in P.Q.L. v.
Canada,(2) the Committee found that all domestic remedies had been exhausted despite the
fact that the petitioner could have made an application for humanitarian and compassionate
relief.
5.3 The petitioner submits that he satisfies the factors listed in the Committee's general
comment on article 3. Furthermore, the Committee should have no confidence in the accuracy
of the original risk assessment as the process did not involve an independent decision-maker,
an oral hearing, rules of evidence or, at the time of the decision in the present case, written
reason. The second risk assessment was made without the knowledge or participation of the
petitioner and relies almost entirely on the research conducted by another office of the State
party's immigration office.
5.4 The petitioner submits that the Convention Refugee Determination Division accepted the
allegations of torture set out in the petition. The petitioner is a Convention refugee and was
found to have a well-founded fear of persecution in Iran. The conclusion that the summons
http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005... 26.02.2008