CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 increased crackdown on journalists and government critics in the lead-up to the January 2014 elections. The author therefore argues that his life would be in danger if he returns to Bangladesh. 3.3 The author further submits that the Immigration and Refugee Board erred in finding that he lacked credibility. The author maintains that he provided to the Board substantial documentation establishing that he had written articles on drug trafficking in Bangladesh and filed a police complaint after receiving threatening telephone calls. The author also asserts that he has never been afforded a fair opportunity to contest the merits of the negative decision by the Board because of the procedural flaws inherent in the judicial review process. Specifically, the author claims that the Federal Court grants only 10 per cent of requests for leave to apply for judicial review of a negative decision. Moreover, the author alleges that the judicial review process does not involve a review on the merits, as questions of credibility and appreciation of evidence are reviewed only on the basis of a standard of “reasonableness” rather than a standard of “correctness”. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations dated 27 January 2015, the State party maintains that the communication is inadmissible due to the author’s failure to exhaust domestic remedies because (a) the author filed a new Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application on 22 October 2014, which is still pending; and (b) although he has been eligible to file an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds since 13 September 2014, he has not done so. The State party submits that either procedure, if successful, would allow the author to remain in Canada. Moreover, the humanitarian and compassionate process would take into consideration any potential hardships the author might face in Bangladesh. The State party notes that in Dastgir v. Canada and Khan v. Canada, the Committee was of the view that the humanitarian and compassionate application was an effective remedy that must be exhausted for purposes of admissibility. 6 The State party regrets the Committee’s more recent position that humanitarian and compassionate applications are not remedies that must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility. 7 The State party takes the view that the grounds on which the author of a communication is allowed to remain in Canada should not matter, as long as the author is protected from removal to the country where she or he alleges to be at risk. The humanitarian and compassionate application is a fair administrative procedure, subject to judicial review, that includes an assessment of relevant hardship factors that an individual may face if he or she were required to apply for permanent resident status from outside Canada. In fact, a number of authors have had their international communications before various treaty bodies, including the Committee, rendered moot because their humanitarian and compassionate application was successful. Recently, two communications before the Committee involving Canada were discontinued for this reason: communications Nos. 2138/2012 and 2144/2012. 4.2 The State party further considers that the author’s allegations under articles 9 (1), 19 (1) and (2), and 26 of the Covenant are incompatible with the scope of these provisions and are therefore inadmissible ratione materiae. These articles do not impose an obligation on States to refrain from removing individuals who potentially face a real risk of infringement 6 7 6 The State party cites, inter alia, communication No. 1578/2007, Dastgir v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 October 2008. The State party cites communication No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 7.4; and communication No. 1816/2008, K.A.L. and A.A.M.L. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 March 2012, para. 6.5 (finding that the authors were not required to apply for a judicial review of a second negative decision on an application for residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds for admissibility purposes.)