CCPR/C/125/D/2323/2013 incidents.6 Subsequently, in the written narrative filed in support of his refugee claim – and in his oral testimony – he entirely omitted to mention the alleged 2002 beating. When asked whether the 2002 incident had really happened, he at first claimed not to know which incident was being spoken about, and only appeared to remember it when shown his application form. When asked why he had omitted mention of that incident, he claimed to have a bad memory. 4.5 For her part, M.Z., in her application form, had failed to mention any acts of violence against her husband. When asked about the omission, she declared that after her long trip to Canada, she had been stressed. 4.6 Despite the authors’ lack of credibility, the Immigration and Refugee Board nevertheless considered in detail the objective documentary evidence concerning the general situation of the Roma population in Romania. The Board quoted at length from the sixteenth to nineteenth periodic reports of Romania to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 7 and concluded that, despite the discrimination and stigmatization against Roma, serious efforts by the Government of Romania were being undertaken to turn this situation around and adequate State protection was in place. Their communication thus amounts to nothing more than an attempt to appeal the Board’s decision in their case, a matter which is outside of the Committee’s competence. 4.7 The State party notes that judicial review has been accepted by this and other Committees as an effective remedy that must be exhausted for the purpose of admissibility. It notes that the current system of judicial review by the Federal Court does provide for “judicial review of the merits”. The fact that judicial review is subject to a leave requirement does not make any difference to its effectiveness as a remedy. In this context, the Court’s stated test for granting leave is that an applicant needs to show that there is a “fairly arguable case” or “a serious question to be determined”. The authors’ leave application was denied. Generally, the effectiveness of a remedy does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant. Moreover, the authors have not explained how they have been affected by the 12-month period of ineligibility to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment. 4.8 Romania is a member State of the European Union and is subject to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). The authors have not demonstrated that Romania is unwilling or unable to adequately protect them from any serious human rights violation that they may face upon return. The objective documentary evidence shows that Romania is making serious efforts to eliminate discrimination and violence against Roma. As citizens of a member State of the European Union, the authors have the right to move to and reside in any other European Union member State for up to three months, without restriction, and longer if certain conditions are met. In the circumstances, even if the authors were at risk of persecution or other serious human rights violations in Romania – which is expressly denied – they are not in need of the protection of Canada. 4.9 Therefore, the whole communication is inadmissible for non-substantiation, pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The authors have failed to explain how their general allegations constitute a violation of the various rights listed. General denunciations are insufficient to substantiate a communication for the purposes of admissibility. Moreover, their evidence consists of the exact same allegations that had been rejected as not credible by a competent domestic tribunal. Other than complaining that the Board “erred”, they have not alleged and certainly have not established that the Board’s decision was manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 4.10 In addition, the authors’ allegations that their rights under articles 9 (1), 17 (1), 24 (1), 26 and 27 would be violated by their removal to Romania are incompatible ratione 6 7 4 He stated: “Eight years ago I was beaten up on the street because I am a Gypsi [sic]. I spent 45 days in the hospital. I don’t want to return to Romania. I want to start my life all over again here in Canada. I want my daughters to grow up in peace with a good education.” CERD/C/ROU/16-19.