Views of the UN Human Rights Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) dated March 27, 2018 in the case of V.K. v. Canada (communication No. 2292/2013).
In 2013, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to Canada.
Subject of the message: expulsion from Canada to Egypt.
Substantive issues: the right to life; the threat of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
Legal positions of the Committee: The Committee refers to its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant (paragraph 12), where it mentions the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise expel a person from their territory. territories where there are serious grounds to believe that there is a real risk of irreparable damage, such as that provided for in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee also indicated that this danger should be personal (See K. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), paragraph 7.3; P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), paragraph 7.2; and X. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), paragraph 9.2.) and sufficiently real to serve as a basis for identifying the risk of irreparable damage. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be taken into account, including the general human rights situation in the author's country of origin (See H. v. Denmark, paragraph 9.2, and X. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), paragraph 5.18.). The Committee recalls that, as a rule, it is for the authorities of States parties to the Covenant to assess the facts and evidence of the case in question in order to determine the existence of a threat, unless it is established that such an assessment was manifestly arbitrary or erroneous or amounted to a denial of justice (paragraph 10.3 of the Views) (See K. v. Denmark, paragraph 7.4.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee takes note of the author's allegations that his expulsion to Egypt would constitute an attack on his freedom, security and life because of his sexual orientation and conversion from Islam to Christianity. He also claims that the State party has not carried out a reasonable assessment of the risks associated with his expulsion (paragraph 10.2 of the Views).
The Committee takes note of the author's statements regarding his sexual orientation, conversion from Islam to Christianity and the alleged risk of persecution to which he could be subjected by his family and the authorities if he returned to Egypt. The Committee also takes note of the documents referred to by the author in support of his allegations, which report serious human rights violations allegedly suffered by homosexuals and converts to the Christian faith in Egypt. At the same time, the Committee notes that the author does not present any specific arguments leading to the conclusion that he would be in personal and real danger if returned, and that the petitions and arguments submitted by the author were carefully analyzed by the authorities of the State party in the process of reviewing and re-examining his application for a risk assessment before expulsion. All these authorities have identified contradictory and implausible aspects in the author's statements. In particular, the Committee notes the State party's argument that the author has not proved or explained in a convincing manner why it is impossible for him to fully confirm the identity of his alleged partner or the fact of his death in Egypt. It also notes the State party's arguments that the doctor's letter submitted by the author, which notes the presence of injuries and scars on the author, does not explain the reasons why the doctor indicates that they were obtained as a result of an attack in 2012.... The Committee notes that the author has not provided convincing evidence of his relationship with the persons he claims to be his sister and son-in-law, as well as that, as he claims, they reported him to the State authorities. Based on an analysis of his case file, the Canadian authorities concluded that the author's allegations were not credible and that the statement that the author would be prosecuted if he returned to Egypt reflected only a "simple probability" (paragraph 10.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee points out that, although the author disputes the assessment and conclusion of the Canadian authorities on the issue of the risk of irreparable harm that he would allegedly face in Egypt, he has not provided any evidence to sufficiently substantiate his claims within the meaning of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that, as the information available shows, the State party took into account all the elements at its disposal to assess the author's danger, including reports on the persecution of Christians, converts to Christianity and homosexuals in Egypt, and that it did not make any miscalculations in the decision-making process. The Committee also considers that, although the author disputes the factual conclusions of the State party's authorities, he has not proved that these conclusions are arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or that they amount to a denial of justice. The Committee therefore considers that the evidence and circumstances presented by the author do not confirm that he would be in real and personal danger of being subjected to treatment contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 10.5 of the Views).
The Human Rights Committee... Considers that the facts before it do not allow it to conclude that the author's expulsion to Egypt would constitute a violation of the author's rights under articles 6, paragraph 1, and 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 11 of the Views).