Insufficiency of evidence of a substantial risk of irreparable harm, despite organizational affiliations of a person in Ethiopia in the framework of a deportation process

Facts

The author is A.G., an Ethiopian man. He argues that his deportation from Canada to Ethiopia would violate his rights under the Covenant, exposing him to serious risks like arbitrary detention, torture, and possibly death. He challenges the pre-removal risk assessment for dismissing his links to political organizations at risk in Ethiopia, citing inconsistencies with prior decisions recognizing his activism. The assessment’s demand for objective evidence from events over 15 years ago is criticized as unrealistic, especially since his family can’t provide such evidence due to their death or lack of contact. The author critiques the assessment’s lack of independence and highlights reports on Ethiopia’s treatment of activists and the government’s monitoring of the diaspora to underscore his risk upon return.

The author contends that his deportation from Canada to Ethiopia would violate his rights under articles 6 (1), 7, and 9 (1) of the Covenant, exposing him to arbitrary detention, torture, and possible death. He disputes the pre-removal risk assessment officer’s findings, citing contradictions with decisions from the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court. The author questions the assessment process, criticizing its reliance on civil servants rather than an independent tribunal. He also highlights reports on Ethiopia’s political climate and government surveillance of diaspora activities to support his claim of potential harm upon return.

Admissibility

Despite the State party’s contention that the author hadn’t exhausted all remedies, the Committee noted he had pursued a second pre-removal risk assessment, deeming further assessments ineffective. The claim under article 9 (1) was found inadmissible as the author didn’t demonstrate how his deportation would pose a significant risk of harm under this article. However, claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 were considered sufficiently substantiated, showing a plausible risk of irreparable harm if deported to Ethiopia, and thus were admitted for further examination.

Merits

The Committee reviewed the case, considering claims that deportation to Ethiopia would violate the author’s rights due to his political affiliations and the country’s human rights situation. However, it found the author failed to demonstrate a personal, substantial risk of irreparable harm, as required. Despite acknowledging his affiliations with certain organizations and the general human rights issues in Ethiopia, the Committee agreed with domestic authorities that there was insufficient evidence of a specific threat to him. Consequently, the Committee concluded that deporting the author would not breach his rights under the Covenant, affirming the decisions made by domestic authorities.