Communication: A.H.G. v. Canada. Message No. 2091/2011. The Views were adopted by the Human Rights Committee on March 25, 2015.
In 2011, the author was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated by Canada.
Subject of the message: deportation from Canada to Jamaica.
Substantive issue: the right to an effective remedy; the right to life; prohibition of the use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the right to human freedom and security; the right of all persons deprived of liberty to humane treatment and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person; the right to private and family life and reputation; protection of the family.
The Committee's legal position: The Committee recalls that the provisions of article 7 of the Covenant are designed to protect both the dignity and the physical and psychological integrity of the individual (paragraph 10.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: The Committee notes that the author moved to Canada at the age of 18 and lived there continuously for 31 years until his expulsion to Jamaica on August 29, 2011; that in 1993 he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, a serious mental disorder, because of which he spent a year and a half on He was treated in a hospital and then regularly underwent outpatient psychiatric treatment; that in 2005, after he was evicted from his apartment and began to live in shelters, he began to have difficulties complying with the medication regime and periodic exacerbations of his psychotic state; that on March 23, 2006, a decision was made that he could not live in Canada in accordance with paragraph 1 of art. 44 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act due to his pronounced criminal tendencies and, in particular, due to the fact that in June 2005 he was found guilty of assault with a weapon and was sentenced to 1 day in prison in addition to the 80 days he had already spent in pre-trial detention detention. The Committee ... Notes that in the decision of April 22, 2011, concerning the author's application for the application of considerations of humanity and compassion, a causal link between his criminal tendencies and illness was recognized (paragraph 10.3 of the Considerations).
Taking into account the circumstances of the present case and recognizing the legitimate desire of States parties to ensure the protection of society, the Committee nevertheless considers that the application to such a mentally ill and in need of special protection person as the author, who has lived in Canada for most of his life, of the decision to expel him to Jamaica because of his criminal acts, who were identified and recognized with his mental disorder, as a result of which medical care and family assistance necessary for a person in such a vulnerable position were immediately stopped, constitutes a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 10.4 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: The Committee considers that the author's expulsion to Jamaica was a violation of his rights within the meaning of article 7 of the Covenant (paragraph 11 of the Views).
In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is obliged to provide the author with an effective remedy. The State party has an obligation to restore justice to the author and allow him to return to Canada, if that is his wish, as well as to provide the author with appropriate compensation. The State party is obliged to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future (paragraph 12 of the Views).