ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/133/D/2623/2015

Communication

2623/2015

Submission: 2021.10.27

View Adopted: 2021.10.27

S.K. v. Canada

Deportation to Iran, no violation found for failure to prove real & personal risk of persecution

Substantive Issues
  • Deportation
  • Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
  • Right to life
  • Torture / ill-treatment
Relevant Articles
  • Article 10
  • Article 14.3 (b)
  • Article 18
  • Article 2 - OP1
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 5.2 (b) - OP1
  • Article 6
  • Article 7
Full Text

Facts

The author is an Iranian national whose application for asylum was denied by Canadian authorities. He claims his removal to Iran would violate his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee admitted the communication but held that the author failed to show that the State party’s denial amounts to a violation of his rights under articles 2 (3), 6, 7, 10, 14 (3) (b), and 18 of the Covenant. Specifically, he claims that the State party failed to conduct a risk assessment of his claims, that he would be at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment on the basis of his faith, and that he was subjected to threats and intimidation by Canadian immigration officials while in detention.

Admissibility

The Committee found the author’s claims partly admissible under articles 6 and 7, on the following grounds: (i) the State party failed to show that the author was duly notified of his abandonmnet hearing, and, since other options available to him would not have a suspensive effect, the Committee was not precluded under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol from being seized of the matter; and (ii) that he had sufficiently substantiated his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The author’s claims under articles 2 (3), 10, 14 (3) (b) and 18 were rejected. The Committee found that the author had failed to substantiate his claims under articles 10 and 14 (3) (b); further, it found that the author’s claim under article 18 was inextricably linked to his claims under articles 6 and 8 and decided to consider the issues raised under this claim insofar as they pertain to the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7. As for his claim under article 2 (3), the Committee (in accordance with its jurisprudence) recalled that article 2 of the Convention cannot be invoked separately so as to give rise to a claim under the Optional Protocol. 

Merits

The Committee found that the author’s removal to Iran would not violate articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, because the author failed to show that the State party’s decision was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice; rather, the Committee was satisfied that the State party took into account all relevant claims and elements when making its decision. Conversely, the Committee found that the information provided to it by the author did not sufficiently indicate that he posed a real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contraty to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant upon his removal to Iran.

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese