CAT/C/63/D/767/2016
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant, a Shia Muslim, was involved in a relationship with a girl from the
Sunni faith named N. His marriage proposal was rejected by her family as he was from a
lower Shia caste. The couple were warned to stop seeing each other, otherwise they would
face fatal consequences. They were caught together on 24 April 2010. The complainant was
badly beaten by friends of the girl’s family who are also members of the Taliban. The
complainant alleges that although the Taliban is a banned terrorist group in Pakistan, a
closely connected group, Lashkar-e-Taiba, operates with impunity and has vowed to kill
him and his family. After the attack, the complainant fled the area. Also, in 2010, members
of Lashkar-e-Taiba killed his cousin.
2.2
Since the complainant’s departure, his family have been continually threatened and
attacked by the group. They have tried to report these attacks to the police, but the police
took no action. The complainant considers that this lack of action reflects police support for
Sunni attacks against the Shia minority, and submits that he would not be protected by the
authorities if returned to Pakistan. Since he left, his family have been forced to hide from
the police and the terrorists, who are continually searching for him and his family. He
provides three sworn affidavits from his parents, a friend and a neighbour confirming this.
2.3
The complainant states that, as a Shia, he has been declared a Qafir (infidel) by the
Sunnis and could therefore face a death sentence or life imprisonment under the blasphemy
laws of Pakistan. He provides support for the claim by quoting the Qu’ran in relation to
statements about the killing of Qafir and also quotes Sunni clerics who have issued a fatwa
against Qafir.
2.4
On 10 May 2010, the complainant moved to Lahore to escape the threat. In July
2010, he fled to the Islamic Republic of Iran for safety. On 27 December 2010, he received
a study visa for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but did not seek
refugee status as he was warned that if he did he would lose his student visa and that the
United Kingdom was “not very good” with refugees from Pakistan. He arrived in Canada
on 24 February 2013 and applied for refugee status immediately at the airport.
2.5
On 9 July 2016, the police raided the complainant’s home in Pakistan and told
neighbours that the complainant and his family should be produced before the police at the
police station in relation to blasphemy charges. The complainant claims that police also
attached a notice to his home declaring him and his family “wanted”. He asserts that he is
therefore also at risk of torture by the authorities in response to the allegation of blasphemy,
and provides various sources that confirm that it is commonplace for individuals’ rights to
freedom of speech and of religion to be violated in Pakistan by charging them with
blasphemy. He particularly refers to a report by the United States Department of State
pointing out that “the Government’s limited capacity and will to investigate or prosecute
the perpetrators of attacks against religious minorities allowed a climate of impunity to
persist … There were continued reports of law enforcement personnel abusing members of
religious minorities and persons accused of blasphemy while in custody.”1 The report states
that, as of the time of its writing, at least 17 people were awaiting execution for blasphemy,
and at least 20 others were serving life sentences. The complainant further states that his
status as a failed asylum seeker places him at risk of torture and arbitrary detention. He
cites, among others, a report of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada that notes
that failed asylum seekers that had been detained on immigration charges have been
arrested on arrival in Pakistan by immigration officials.
2.6
On 15 October 2013, the Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and
Refugee Board of Canada denied the complainant’s application for refugee status. On 20
March 2014, the Refugee Appeal Division declined his appeal against the decision. On 24
July 2014, the Division refused his application to reopen the appeal. On 12 November 2014,
the Federal Court denied him leave to apply for judicial review. On 29 December 2015, his
application for pre-removal risk assessment was rejected. The complainant’s application for
protection on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is still pending, but does not have
1
2
International Religious Freedom Report for 2013. Available from
www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2013religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper.