public or, as in the author's case, whose continued presence in the State was determined to be contrary to the public interest. On the basis of the documentary evidence submitted by the author as well as their own evidence regarding the author's risk upon removal to India, the authorities concluded that the risk was minimal. Moreover, a judge of the Federal Court Trial Division determined that the risk to the author was not sufficient to justify a stay of his removal. 8.4 The Government of Canada first became aware that the petitioner had submitted a communication, including a request for interim measures, when the author's counsel alluded to the Committee's granting of the request during a discussion with a CIC official on 18 December 1997, three months after the Committee had received the author's communication and request for interim measures. The record before the Committee reveals that the interim measures request was issued, after several appeals by the author's counsel to the Committee, a few days before his scheduled removal. The Government of Canada was not aware of these appeals nor was it given the opportunity to comment on these ex parte communications with the Committee. 8.5 In summary, irrespective of their legal status, interim measures requests received from the Committee are given serious consideration by the State party. However, the State party determined that the present case was not an appropriate one for a stay to be granted, in the light of the above-mentioned factors and in particular: (a) the prima facie absence of substantial personal risk to the author, as determined by the risk assessment conducted; (b) the fact that the continued presence in Canada of a convicted terrorist would be contrary to the public interest; and (c) the non-binding nature of the Committee's request. Counsel's comments 9.1 Counsel contends that it has never been his position that the State party was legally obliged to comply with the Committee's interim measures request. He does argue, however, that the Canadian public would normally expect its Government to comply with a request from the United Nations. This is consistent with convention, past practice and the State party's self-image as a humanitarian member of the international community. 9.2 The State party could not possibly have given serious consideration to the interim measures request, in view of the fact that after learning of the request on 18 December 1997 it continued to act single-mindedly to effect the author's removal by opposing an application for a stay of deportation pending a review of the Minister's finding that it would be contrary to the public interest to allow the author to proceed with his refugee claim. The State party chose to rely on its position that the Minister had already conducted a risk assessment with respect to the author and that nothing further was required. The author was not able to do anything but make preliminary written submissions. There was no oral hearing, no ability to call or cross-examine witnesses, no proper disclosure of "internal State documents", and so on. The State party justifies its actions on the basis that the Federal Court dismissed the author's application for a stay of removal. However, the Federal Court's finding with respect to the stay application was not subject to review. It is the finding of one judge, with whom the author disagrees. If the author had appeared before any number of other judges in the Federal Court the result of the stay application might have been different. The Committee's decision on admissibility 10.1 At its twenty-first session, the Committee considered the question of the admissibility of the communication and ascertained that the same matter had not been and was not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the 101