|
| BEFORE: |
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Alexis Dipanda Mouelle (Cameroon)
VICE-CHAIRMEN: Mr. Peter Thomas Burns (Canada), Mr. Fawzi El Ibrashi
(Egypt), Mr. Hugo Lorenzo (Uruguay)
RAPPORTEUR: Mr. Bent Sorensen (Denmark)
MEMBERS: Mr. Ricardo Gil Lavedra (Argentina), Mrs. Julia Iliopoulos-Strangas
(Greece), Mr. Mukunda Regmi (Nepal), Mr. Habib Slim (Tunisia), Mr.
Alexander M. Yakovlev (Russia)
The fourteenth session of the Committee was attended by all the
members, except Mr. Hugo Lorenzo, who was not authorized to travel
by the United Nations on the grounds of incompatibility between his
present status of international civil servant and that of member of
the Committee. |
|
|
| Applicant: |
M.A. |
| Respondent: |
Canada |
| |
|
| Perma
Link: |
http://www.worldcourts.com/cat/eng/decisions/1995.05.03_MA_v_Canada.htm |
| Citation: |
M.A. v. Canada, Comm. 22/1995, U.N.
Doc. A/50/44, at 72 (1995) |
| Publication: |
Report of the Comm. against Torture, U.N. GAOR, 50th
Sess., Supp. No. 44, U.N. Doc. A/50/44, Annex V, at 72 (May 5, 1995) |
|
|
|
|
The Committee
against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
Meeting on 3 May 1995,
Adopts the following:
Decision on Admissibility
1. The author of the communication is M. A., an Iranian citizen, currently
in detention in Canada, who claims to be a victim of a violation by Canada
of article 3 of the Convention against Torture.
2. The author arrived in Canada on 14 October 1991, and was granted refugee
status on 24 May 1992. However, following indications that he was actively
working for the Iranian secret service, he was declared a threat to Canadian
security and no longer has a right to remain in the country.
3. The author is in the process of challenging the decision by way of a
reasonableness hearing before a judge of the Federal Court. He is also
challenging the relevant legislation before the Constitutional Court of
Canada.
4. Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee
from considering any communication from an individual, unless it has
ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic
remedies; this rule does not apply if it is established that the application
of domestic remedies has been or would be unreasonable prolonged or would be
unlikely to bring effective relief. In the present case, the author has
invoked this exception, arguing that the chances of success are almost
non-existent, in view of the prior jurisprudence by the Courts and the
process governing the reasonableness hearing. However, in the circumstances
of the instant case, the Committee considers that the author has not shown
the existence of special circumstances which should absolve him from
exhausting domestic remedies. In this connection the Committee observes
that, in principle, it is not within the scope of the Committee's competence
to evaluate the prospects of success of domestic remedies, but only whether
they are proper remedies for the determination of the author's claims.
5. The Committee against Torture therefore decides:
(a) That the communication is inadmissible;
(b) That this decision shall be communicated to the author and, for
information, to the State party.
[Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the
original version.]
|
|
