CCPR/C/112/D/2126/2011 and finds that it is not precluded from examining the communication by the requirements of article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 10.4 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the author had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies in that he had failed to request a residence permit on the basis of his marriage to a Russian Federation citizen. The Committee notes that the author has not provided an explanation as to why applying for a residence permit on the ground of being married to a Russian Federation citizen and having a child, who is also a Russian Federation citizen, would not have constituted an effective remedy for the protection of his rights under article 17 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore declares the author’s claim under article 17 to be inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. 10.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be considered inadmissible on the grounds of abuse of the right to submit communications, owing to the fact that, both during and after the period for which he had been granted temporary asylum, the author had failed to apply for a residence permit on the basis of his marriage to a Russian Federation citizen and of having a child of that marriage to support. The Committee however observes that the essence of the author’s communication concerns issues under article 7 of the Covenant if the author were to be deported to Afghanistan, and finds that it is not precluded from examining the communication by the requirements of article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 10.6 The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the author had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies since he had failed to apply for a residence permit on the basis of his marriage to a Russian citizen and that the above legal avenue was still available to him if he left the country voluntarily and submitted “primary migration paperwork” (see para. 4.4 above). The Committee however takes note of the author’s explanations that he has no valid documents with which to leave the Russian Federation legally and that there is no guarantee that, if he leaves, he will be allowed to reenter the country. The Committee observes that, as an undocumented immigrant, if the author leaves the Russian Federation the only possible destination for him would be his home country, Afghanistan. The Committee also observes that the risk of his being subjected to torture would not be assessed by the State party’s authorities in the course of application proceedings for a residence permit on the basis of family ties. The Committee therefore concludes that it is not precluded from examining the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant by the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2(b), of the Optional Protocol. 10.7 The Committee notes the State party’s further submission that the author had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies in that he had not filed any appeals to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which is the highest judicial authority for administrative issues. The Committee however observes that the decision of the Dzerzhinskiy District Court of 1 October 2010, which upheld the refusal to extend the author’s temporary asylum, was based on the consideration that the Law on Refugees does not protect individuals such as the author, who in the opinion of the Court had originally left their country for economic reasons. The Committee further observes that the author has raised issues under article 7 of the Covenant and that the State party has not provided an explanation as to whether the suggested appeal to the Supreme Court would result in an assessment of whether the author would be at risk of being subjected to torture were he to be forcibly deported to Afghanistan. The Committee observes that, in the context of article 7 of the Covenant, the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires the author to use remedies that are directly related to assessing the risk of torture in the country to which he would be sent, not those that might allow him to remain where he is. The Committee therefore concludes that it is not precluded from examining the author’s claim 10