CCPR/C/125/D/3041/2017 the separation of the family could last several years, since the author’s husband’s asylum application and consequent permanent residence application could take up to 32 months to be processed. Consequently, the deportation of the author with her older children would amount to a violation of their rights under articles 17 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant. 5.8 The author notes that she was detained with her children in preparation for their deportation, and was later released when the Committee issued interim measures requesting the State party to suspend the deportation while the communication was under examination. She submits that such detention of minor children, even if for a short duration, is disproportionate and arbitrary, and constitutes a violation of their rights under articles 17 (1), 23 (1), 24 (1) and 9 (1) of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author. 6 The Committee notes the author’s submission that the detention of her minor children with her, in preparation for their deportation, is disproportionate and arbitrary, and constitutes a violation of their rights under articles 17 (1), 23 (1), 24 (1) and 9 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the author did not bring that claim before the Committee at the time of her initial communication, but referred to it only in her comments on the State party’s observations, and that the State party has not had the opportunity to comment on these allegations. Furthermore, the Committee notes that the author has not attempted to use any domestic remedy to challenge her children’s detention, and has not argued that there were no effective remedies available. Accordingly, it considers that these claims are inadmissible, in accordance with article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the author’s claims under article 13 should be deemed inadmissible because when she first entered Canadian territory, she could have challenged her ineligibility and prospective return to the United States by means of an application for leave to apply for judicial review to the Federal Court, coupled with a motion for a judicial stay. The Committee notes that the author not only makes claims with regard to the application of the Canada-United States Safe Third Country Agreement, but also about the procedural guarantees of the pre-removal risk assessment and about the lack of an oral hearing in her case. The Committee notes that the remedy proposed by the State party is aimed at challenging the application of the CanadaUnited States Safe Third Country Agreement exclusively, but does not cover all aspects of the author’s claims under article 13. The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the exhaustion of domestic remedies of the author for any of the other claims under the communication. Accordingly, it considers that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol does not preclude the examination of the remaining claims made in the present communication. 6.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, if she were to be returned to Angola, her rights under article 9 of the Covenant would be violated as she would be persecuted there and extradited to Democratic Republic of the Congo where she would be detained in life-threatening circumstances. The Committee also notes the State party’s challenge to the 6 See Warsame v. Canada (CCPR/C/102/D/1959/2010), para. 7.4 and P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5. 9