CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 adultery and a criminal case was initiated against her. On 3 January 2011, the complainant’s ex-husband attacked one of their daughters because she had refused to tell him where the complainant was and to call the complainant to urge her to return to Pakistan. 2.7 On 6 April 2010, the complainant submitted an application for a pre-removal risk assessment with the Canadian authorities, which was rejected on 26 May 2011. On 26 July 2011, she appealed the rejection before the Federal Court of Canada, which dismissed her appeal on 21 October 2011. The complainant submitted that she had exhausted all available domestic remedies and that she could be deported to Pakistan at any moment. The complaint 3. The complainant submits that her Convention rights would be violated if she were to be deported to Pakistan. She claims that, if returned, she would be at a serious risk of imprisonment, torture, honour killing or disappearance. The complainant also submits that there is a consistent pattern of human rights violations and honour killing in Pakistan and that the situation of women in Pakistan should be taken into account before deciding on her deportation. State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits 4.1 On 28 May 2013, the State party referred to the complainant’s claims that if removed, she would be at risk of being tortured — either by State authorities or by private citizens in Pakistan with the acquiescence of the State. The State party notes that the complainant also mentioned a risk of disappearance in her communication and submits that it would discuss the alleged risk of disappearance only insofar as torture may be a component aspect of this form of serious harm. The State party also submits that the other risks mentioned by the complainant — to her life, arrest, detention and/or imprisonment — did not fall within the competence of the Committee under article 3 of the Convention. The complainant claimed that the risk of torture arises from a false accusation of adultery made in 2006 by her husband’s uncle. She claimed that, if she returned to Pakistan, she would be sought by the police in relation to this accusation and she would also face potential risks of harm from her ex-husband, her sons, her ex-husband’s uncle and other private individuals. 4.2 The State party submits that its refugee status decision makers had determined that the complainant would not be at a real risk of torture upon return to Pakistan. It considers the communication inadmissible for three reasons: (a) the complainant did not exhaust all available domestic remedies, thus her communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) she did not substantiate, even on a prima facie basis, her allegation that she faced a real and personal risk of torture upon return to Pakistan, therefore the communication is inadmissible as an abuse of the right of submission under article 22 (2); and (c) her remaining allegations are incompatible with the provisions of the Convention, therefore the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2). 4.3 However, should the Committee declare the communication admissible, the State party submits that, on the basis of the same considerations, the complaint is entirely without merit. 4.4 The State party maintains that the complainant did not exhaust two available domestic remedies: (a) she did not apply for leave to seek judicial review of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division nor did she provide any evidence that she could not afford legal representation in order to avail herself of this remedy; and (b) she did not apply for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, nor did she explain why she did not pursue this remedy. 3