CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 4.5 The State party submits that after the complainant had received the negative decision from the Refugee Protection Division, she could have applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of that decision, but she did not. A successful application for judicial review would result in the flawed decision being set aside and the applicant’s claim being resubmitted to the Refugee Protection Division for a fresh determination by a different decision maker. Judicial review has consistently been recognized by the Committee as a procedure that must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility of a communication.1 The decision of the Refugee Protection Division is a critical step in the State party’s system for assessing a claimant’s allegations of risk upon return to their country of origin. By not seeking a judicial review of that decision, the complainant did not provide the decision makers with the opportunity to review and correct any errors that may have been made in the initial assessment. The complainant stated that she did not exhaust this domestic remedy because she could not afford a lawyer. The State party maintains that the complainant failed to prove that this remedy was factually unavailable. Complainants are required to provide case-specific evidence to substantiate that financial considerations prevented them from pursuing a particular remedy.2 In her communication, the complainant provided no evidence to substantiate her assertion that she could not afford a lawyer. Such evidence is particularly important in the current communication where the factual record is inconsistent with the notion that the complainant was unable to find legal counsel. The complainant was represented by the same legal counsel for her Refugee Protection Division hearing, her preremoval risk assessment application, and her application to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision. She even had the assistance of an immigration consultant to prepare her initial personal information form and personal narrative. In the light of the complainant’s apparent ability to secure qualified representation for all other domestic proceedings, she has a clear evidentiary burden to substantiate that she was unable to find a lawyer for that one stage of the process. Furthermore, the complainant did not need to be represented by a lawyer to pursue that remedy. The Federal Courts Rules permit applicants such as the complainant to represent themselves.3 The State party notes that it costs Can$ 50 to file a leave application of this nature before the Federal Court. 4.6 The State party also maintains that the complainant did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate any incidents of torture suffered before she left Pakistan — either at the hands of State authorities or private individuals with the acquiescence of the State. She did not substantiate that a local dispute between family members, centred around an allegation of adultery over six years ago, could give rise to such a risk of harm that would cause her return to anywhere in Pakistan in 2013 to be a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The State party further maintains that the complainant did not provide 1 2 3 4 See for example communications No. 307/2006, E.Y. v. Canada, decision adopted on 4 November 2009, paras. 9.3-9.4; No. 304/2006, L.Z.B. v. Canada, decision adopted on 8 November 2007, para. 6.6; No. 273/2005, Aung v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 May 2006, para. 6.3; No. 66/1997, P.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 13 November 1998, para. 6.2; No. 86/1997, P.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 November 1999, para. 6.2; No. 42/1996, R.K. v. Canada, decision adopted on 20 November 1997, para. 7.2; No. 95/1997, L.O. v. Canada, decision adopted on 19 May 2000, para. 6.5; No. 22/1995, M.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 3 May 1995, para. 3; 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 11.6. See communications No. 24/1995, A.E. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 2 May 1995, para. 4; No. 121/1998, S.H. v. Norway, decision adopted on 19 November 1999, para. 7.3; No. 127/1999, Z.T. v. Norway, decision adopted on 19 November 1999, para. 7.3; No. 284/2006, R.S.A.N. v. Canada, decision adopted on 17 November 2006, para. 6.4. See Canada, Federal Court Rules (SOR/98-106), rule 119. Available at http://laws-lois. justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-106/FullText.html.