CCPR/C/106/D/1912/2009 author’s application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds (H&C) was rejected. Due to limited financial means, the author did not appeal against this decision. On 17 September 2007, his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application was also rejected. While taking into account human rights problems in Sri Lanka with regard to Tamil civilians, the PRRA officer noted that the author did not fit the profile of a young Tamil male likely to be targeted by the LTTE or the authorities. On 31 October 2007, the Federal Court rejected the author’s motion for stay of his deportation and ordered his removal for 1 November 2007. 2.5 On 22 and 29 October 2007, upon the advice of a new lawyer who told him that the first PRRA and H&C applications had not been filed in a manner that would guarantee a positive outcome, the author filed a second PRRA and H&C application, submitting new evidence. The author submitted a letter from a Justice of the Peace in Sri Lanka, which details the suffering of his wife and son since his departure and specifically mentions that his son had been arrested and asked by the authorities about the whereabouts of the author. 2.6 In the hope that these procedures would be successful, the author did not appear for his deportation on 1 November 2007. He acted in good faith, believing that a decision should be rendered on a properly prepared application prior to his removal from Canada. The author did not try to hide from the authorities. He continued to live in the same apartment as prior to the removal order. While the second procedure was ongoing, the author received notification that on 5 February 2008 the Federal Court had rejected without reasons the author’s application to seek judicial review of the first negative PRRA decision. 2.7 On 21 May 2009, the author was convoked to an interview, during which he received the two negative decisions on his second H&C and PRRA applications. The decisions found that the alleged persecutions of his wife and son were not sufficient to establish a personalized risk of persecution or torture for the author. Following this interview, he was detained by the Border Services Agency. On 25 May 2009, the author was granted conditional release. On 4 September 2009, the Federal Court rejected without reasons the author’s applications for judicial review of the second H&C and PRRA decisions. The complaint 3.1 The author submits that his deportation from Canada to Sri Lanka exposes him to a real risk of arbitrary detention, torture, cruel and inhuman treatment, including death. In the past, he had been detained and questioned on several occasions by the army and bears scars from the torture to which he had been subjected by the authorities. In this regard, the State party, in the first H&C decision, has accepted the 1987 and 1989 detentions as proven, on the basis of confirmation from the Sri Lankan Red Cross Society. 3.2 The author further submits that the risk of being arbitrarily detained upon arrival at the airport in Sri Lanka has been documented in the media and by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in similar cases, 5 in particular as the author has been arrested in the past for suspicion of being an LTTE member and also as he is a rejected asylum seeker coming from abroad. He also underlines that the request for travel documents presented by the Canadian authorities to the Sri Lankan authorities would alert the Sri Lankan authorities of his return and would enhance his risk of being arbitrarily detained, tortured and mistreated upon his arrival. Even if he was able to pass through the airport checks without being arrested, he would be at risk in Colombo, as he is a Tamil from the North, which is 5 4 The author refers to ECHR, NA v. The United Kingdom, Judgment of 6 August 2008 (Appl. No. 25904/07), paras. 145-147.