CAT/C/62/D/696/2015 appeal, however, the complainant failed to convince the Council of State that there was a valid reason for missing the deadline for the appeal. 10.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the appeal procedure of the Council of State is an ineffective remedy because it does not automatically suspend the expulsion proceedings and it rejects appeals that do not provide new facts. Therefore, an appeal to the Council of State would only be a formality rather than a procedure that would lead to a remedy. 10.4 The Committee considers that mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy do not absolve the complainant from seeking to exhaust such remedy. It is even more difficult to be persuaded by the argument of ineffectiveness, after one has failed to seek the remedy due to his or her own tardiness, which cannot be attributed to the State party. The Committee concludes that, in the circumstances, the complaint is inadmissible for nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 11. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the complaint is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 11