CEDAW/C/50/D/26/2010 embody the principle of equality of men and women in Canada’s constitution (art. 2 (a)); to adopt appropriate legislative and other measures prohibiting all discrimination against women (art. 2 (b)); to establish the legal protection of the rights of women on an equal basis with men (art. 2 (c)); or to refrain from engaging in any act or practice of discrimination against women (art. 2 (d)). Similarly, the author has provided no evidence that the processing of her immigration case was in any way shaped by, or the result of, a failure by Canada “to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women” in order to eliminate prejudices and practices based on discriminatory ideas against women (art. 5(a)) or of a further failure to adopt all necessary measures at the national level aimed at achieving the rights in the Convention (art. 24). According to the State party, the communication should as such be declared inadmissible by virtue of article 4, paragraph 2 (c), of the Optional Protocol. 4.6 Finally, the State party claims that the author failed to exhaust domestic remedies. She had the opportunity, but did not seek leave to apply for judicial review of the negative decision in her PRRA application dismissed on 30 April 2009. At the same time that the author applied for a PRRA, she also made a separate H&C application on 27 October 2008 for permanent residence, which was dismissed on 27 October 2009. She subsequently obtained leave to apply for judicial review of her failed H&C application before the Federal Court of Canada. Her removal was stayed in the meantime. In a written judgment dated 1 June 2010, the Federal Court dismissed the author’s appeal. On 25 June 2010, the author submitted an application for a second PRRA, in which she highlighted a number of changes in her situation, since the decision in her first PRRA and H&C applications in 2009.9 4.7 A decision has yet to be provided on the author’s second PRRA application.10 As such, the risks faced by the author, especially the new elements cited, and the supporting evidence and reports not previously provided, have not yet been assessed under the PRRA procedure. The State party stresses that judicial review is an effective remedy, 11 recalling that both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture have previously found that the PRRA is an effective remedy, which must be exhausted for the purposes of admissibility. 12 The author has provided no explanation as to why she failed to pursue this effective domestic __________________ 9 10 11 12 As proof in support of her claim that her ex-spouse is very unstable, the author provided records from the Montreal police from 23 November 2008, when she had made an emergency call to the police to complain that her ex-spouse had made death threats against her and had threatened to commit suicide. She also provided letters dating from June 2010 from her mother and sister in Valle de los Reyes, Mexico claiming that they had spotted the ex-spouse on a number of occasions hanging around the author’s parents’ house. In addition, the author provided copies of the non-governmental reports examining the protection offered to victims of domestic violence in Mexico, intended to respond directly to the findings in the author’s negative H&C application, arguing that, contrary to such findings, protection available to victims of domestic violence in Mexico is not adequate. At the time of the State party’s submission. A negative decision on her second PRRA application was adopted of 7 December 2010. The State party refers to N.S.F. v. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (note 5 above); Committee against Torture communications No. 304/2006, L.Z.B. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 8 November 2007, para. 6.6, No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 11.6 and No. 95/1997, L.O. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 19 May 2000, para. 6.5; and Human Rights Committee communications No. 982/2001, Bhullar v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 31 October 2006, para. 7.3 and No. 939/2000, Dupuy v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 18 March 2005, para. 7.3. The State party refers to Human Rights Committee communication No. 1302/2004, Khan v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 July 2006, para. 5.5 and Committee against Torture communication No. 273/2005, T.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 15 May 2006, para. 6.4. 7