CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 complex situation in Pakistan and can render a better decision on his case. The complainant also submits that he is from a third world country where individuals who claim their human rights are threatened, scared away and/or punished. He fears that the Canadian immigration officials will become angry if he requests additional information and will deport him. In this connection, the complainant refers to his assertion that when he called the Immigration and Refugee Board in 2005, the official with whom he spoke threatened to send him back to Pakistan.6 This fear still haunts him and prevents him from asking for information and help from the authorities. State party’s further observations on admissibility and merits 6.1 In its observations dated 17 April 2014, the State party again considers that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. The new evidence the complainant submitted to the Committee, relating to the events surrounding the deaths of his family members, was not submitted to decision makers in Canada for review, and the Committee has repeatedly held that new evidence, such as medical or documentary evidence emerging after domestic proceedings have concluded, must be subjected to domestic review in order to give the authorities the opportunity to examine the evidence. 7 It is for domestic tribunals, and not the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence. 8 Furthermore, the complainant has been eligible since 22 December 2011 to apply for a new PRRA, which would have provided for a risk assessment and consideration of the new evidence. He has not done so. The complainant further failed to pursue his abandoned refugee protection claim in 2005, and the documents he provided to the Committee do not provide a credible explanation for his lack of effort to take reasonable steps to pursue the claim. Although it appears that correspondence from the Refugee Protection Division was sent to the wrong address, all three pieces of misdirected correspondence were also sent to the complainant’s counsel, in accordance with the information he provided in his Personal Information Form on 15 April 2003. There is no indication that the complainant informed the Immigration and Refugee Board that his counsel had stopped pursuing his case. Applicants are instructed in the Personal Information Form to immediately notify the Board if counsel is retained or changed. After learning in 2005 that his claim had been considered abandoned, the complainant did not attempt to have the claim reopened. He states he contacted “some consultants” and was told that, owing to the passage of time, reopening was not possible. This explanation is not founded in fact or law, as the complainant was permitted under then-existing rules to have his abandoned refugee claim reopened. He would have been eligible to file such an application in 2005, on the basis that he had not received any hearing-related communications from the Refugee Protection Division. Moreover, errors made by privately retained counsel are not attributable to the State and cannot by themselves constitute an excuse for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.9 Finally, the State party reiterates its observation that the complainant has had over 10 years to file an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which is a domestic remedy that must be exhausted. There is no requirement to hire a lawyer for such an application, and the State party’s website provides the application form, guidelines for applicants and links to organizations that provide free services for immigrants. The State party therefore considers 6 7 8 9 See paragraph 5.2. The State party cites communication No. 35/1995, K.K.H. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 November 1995. The State party cites, inter alia, communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006, para. 7.6. The State party cites communication No. 395/2009, H.E.-M. v. Canada, decision adopted on 1 July 2011, para. 6.4; and No. 284/2006, R.S.A.N. v. Canada, decision adopted on 17 November 2006, para. 6.4. 11