CAT/C/46/D/395/2009 convictions. The report mentions the fact that the complainant would be willing to undergo clinical therapy aimed at further reducing the danger he poses. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering a claim submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 Pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee must ascertain that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this shall not be the rule if the application of remedies has been unreasonably prolonged or would be unlikely to bring the alleged victim effective relief. 6.3 The Committee notes that in the State party’s opinion, the communication should be ruled inadmissible on the grounds that the complainant was given numerous opportunities to submit evidence that he was personally at risk of torture if he returned to Lebanon, and that at no stage of the appeal did he submit any written comments; also, that he subsequently did not pursue his application for leave and judicial review with due diligence, omitting to submit to the Federal Court a case file in support of his application. The Committee notes that in the State party’s opinion, the complainant cannot use his lawyer’s negligence as a pretext for eschewing his responsibility to exhaust domestic remedies. The Committee takes note, also, of the complainant’s argument that he did act with due diligence, but that it was his lawyer who omitted to submit the file to the Federal Court, and that he cannot consequently be blamed for this negligence. 6.4 The Committee recalls its consistent jurisprudence whereby errors made by a lawyer privately hired by the complainant cannot normally be imputed to the State party.7 The Committee notes, moreover, that the complainant was on several occasions during the domestic procedures requested to provide proof that he continued to be personally at risk of torture in the event of his expulsion to Lebanon; that the complainant has never availed himself of such opportunities, nor explained his failure to do so. Thus, without being required to address the other claims made by the parties, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not availed himself of opportunities to exhaust all domestic remedies, remedies which are now closed as a result of the prescription of remedies in domestic law. 6.5 The Committee is thus of the opinion that domestic remedies have not been exhausted as required by article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention. 7. The Committee against Torture consequently decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French (original version) and Spanish. Will subsequently be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian in the annual report of the Committee to the General Assembly. 7 GE.11-43850 Communication No. 284/2006, R.S.A.N. v. Canada, para. 6.4; communication No. 307/2006, E.Y. v. Canada, para. 9.4. 7