CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 6.5 The State party further observes that claimants have additional domestic remedies available to them during the 12-month period of ineligibility to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment or consideration on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. Where a claimant seeks leave to apply for a judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division or Refugee Appeal Division , this recourse generally occurs during that 12-month interval. Moreover, a stay of removal may be available pending the outcome of an application to the Federal Court for leave and for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Protection Division or of the Refugee Appeal Division. In addition, provision is made in section 112 (2.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for exemptions from the 12-month pre-removal risk assessment ineligibility period when there has been a change in conditions in a claimant’s country of nationality that could put him or her at risk. The Act also provides for exceptions to the 12-month ineligibility period for making an application based on medical humanitarian and compassionate grounds or where removal may have an adverse effect on the best interests of a child. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any complaint, unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely, after a fair trial, to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument, inter alia, that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b), of the Convention, as the complainant failed to pursue with due diligence his application for leave to apply for a judicial review of the 18 October 2013 decision by the Refugee Appeal Division dismissing his appeal against the 21 June 2013 decisions of the Refugee Protection Division. The Committee notes that the complainant had applied for leave for a judicial review of the Refugee Appeal Division’s decision on 5 December 2013, but that it was denied because of the complainant’s failure to file the required materials. The Committee further notes that the complainant does not challenge the effectiveness of the remedy of judicial review of the decision, nor does he provide an explanation as to why he did not file the required documents on time, although he had an opportunity to do so. The Committee further notes that the complainant has not argued that he was represented by a State-appointed lawyer at the relevant time, recalls that errors made by a privately retained lawyer cannot normally be attributed to the State party41 and concludes that the complainant has failed to advance sufficient elements to justify his failure to complete his application for a judicial review of the decision by the Refugee Appeal Division in his case. The Committee observes that the complainant failed to diligently exhaust the remedy with respect to that negative decision. In the present case, the Committee does not consider that application for leave to apply for a judicial review of the decision would have been an ineffective remedy in the 41 See communications No. 284/2006, R.S.A.N. v. Canada, decision on inadmissibility adopted 17 November 2006, para. 6.4; and No. 307/2006, E.Y. v. Canada, decision on inadmissibility adopted 4 November 2009, para. 9.4. 17