CAT/C/62/D/702/2015 judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision with a motion to stay the removal on 18 September 2015, through their previous counsel, to the Federal Court of Canada, which was declined on 22 September. Avtar Singh died on 24 September in India, as a result of the injuries he sustained in detention. There was therefore no legal avenue available. The complainants did inform their counsel of the matter, but he did not present the information to authorities. They present the information to the Committee in good faith. They further note that it is not the practice in India to state the cause of death on the death certificate.37 Mr. Singh died in a town 30 minutes by car from his village because he had been arrested by police in Phillaur and admitted to the nearest hospital for treatment upon his release. 5.8 The complainants reiterate that they face a serious risk of torture and death if returned to India, and therefore to return them would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) because domestic remedies have not been exhausted, as the complainants failed to pursue their application for judicial review of the negative preremoval risk assessment, along with which a stay of removal can be requested; they failed to apply for judicial review of the denial of permanent resident status based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds; and evidence of the alleged arrest, torture and consequent death of Avtar Singh has not been brought before domestic authorities. In particular, the complainants failed to avail themselves of an available remedy in the form of an administrative deferral of removal on the basis of this new evidence, which is also subject to judicial review in the event of a negative outcome. The State party avers that judicial review in such cases assesses, inter alia, whether a factual error has been made and that such review is effective and substantive and that, in practice, cases are sent back for reconsideration on this basis. The State party further asserts that the complainants have failed to substantiate their claims that they face a personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to India. 6.3 The Committee notes the complainants’ assertion that they did not apply for any of the above relief because their counsel at the time failed to do so, despite being informed of developments. It also notes their assertion that, in any case, such remedies are expensive, ineffective and unlikely to bring effective relief, and therefore the communication should be found to be admissible in accordance with the exception under article 22 (5) (b). They claim that the evidence proffered clearly shows a personal risk and that their claim has therefore been substantiated and is admissible. 6.4 The Committee notes that even though the complainants state that the information regarding the alleged torture and death of Avtar Singh is “crucial” in establishing the risk to the life of the complainants, they failed to bring it to the attention of the domestic judicial authorities, having had the opportunity to do so both in filing documentary evidence in support of the application for leave to have the pre-removal risk assessment decision judicially reviewed and in applying for an administrative deferral of removal. It notes the fact that Mr. Singh’s arrest was introduced in an affidavit attached to the judicial review leave application dated 18 September 2015, but that evidence regarding his death on 24 37 In accordance with section 17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969, available at www.pbnrhm.org/docs/b&d_reg.pdf. 11