CAT/C/33/D/163/2000 Page 7 The author’s comments on the State party’s submission 5.1 The State party’s observations were transmitted to the complainants for comment on 19 August 2003. A reminder was sent on 2 October 2003, but no response has been received. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any of the allegations in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of the remedies has been or would be unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely, after a fair trial, to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. 6.3 The Committee has noted the State party’s explanation made on 30 July 2003 that the complainants left the State party on 18 July 2000, in comp liance with a removal order against them. The Committee is deeply concerned by the fact that the State party did not accede to the Committee’s request under rule 108 of its rules of procedure to the effect that it should refrain from expelling the authors while their communication was being considered by the Committee, and thereby failed to comply with the spirit of the Convention. The Committee reiterates that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee's competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with it in good faith in applying the procedure. Compliance with interim measures called for by the Committee is essential in order to protect the person in question from irreparable harm, which could, moreover, nullify the end result of the proceedings before the Committee. The State party is invited to comply, in future, with the Committee’s requests for interim measures of protection9 . 6.4 Meanwhile, the State party has indicated that subsequent to their expulsion in July 2000, the authors returned in Canada – the complaint’s wife in December 2000, with a valid work permit, and the complainant in October 2001, after seeking asylum on grounds that differ from the allegations that are in the present communication. In the light of the above, and in absence of any observations from the complainants on the State party’s submission or any further information (on their current situation), the Committee considers that the complainants have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claim for purposes of admissibility. Therefore, it considers that the communication is manifestly unfounded. 7. The Committee consequently decides: (a) 9 That the communication is inadmissible; See T.P.S v. Canada, Communication No. 099/1997, paragraph 15.6, and Cecilia Rosana Núñez Chipana v. Venezuela, Communication No. 110/1998.