CCPR/C/115/D/2284/2013 8.3 The Committee notes that the author has availed himself of numerous administrative and judicial remedies and that nothing now stands in the way of his deportation to Chad. Moreover, the State party has not contested the fact that domestic remedies have been exhausted. Consequently, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 With regard to the author’s claim under article 2 of the Covenant regarding the decision to deport him, the Committee recalls that this provision canno t be invoked independently 17 and therefore considers this part of the communication to be inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee also notes the author’s claims regarding a violation of article 6, but considers that they have been insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. The Committee accordingly declares this part of the communication also to be inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee is of the view that, for purposes of admissibility, the author has also failed to sufficiently substantiate his argument under article 13 of the Covenant relative to his claim that he was unable to advance the reasons why he should not be deported or to have his case reviewed by a competent authority. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s asylum proceedings were conducted in conformity with the law and that he was able to avail himself of all the remedies provided for in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The Committee points out that the author was afforded an opportunity to submit and challenge evidence concerning his removal and that the author took the opportunity, under domestic law, to have his asylum application reviewed on several occasions by the competent authorities, such as the Refugee Protection Division and the Federal Court, and to use the relevant administrative procedures: the pre -removal risk assessment and the application for residency on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Consequently, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim for purposes of admissibility and that this part of the communication must therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on grounds of the author’s failure to substantiate his c laims under article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments advanced by the State party to support its position in this respect are intimately linked to the merits and must therefore be examined at that stage. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that his deportation to Chad from Canada would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. It takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claims are largely speculative and that those claims were rejected by the various Canadian institutions that reviewed his case by reason of their inconsistency and lack of credibility and the lack of objective proof that he would run such a risk. __________________ 17 GE.15-21665 See for example communications Nos. 2176/2012, M. v. Belgium, decision on inadmissibility adopted on 30 March 2015, para. 6.5; and 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, para. 7.3. 11/13