CAT/C/45/D/333/2007 evidence to corroborate his mistreatment, namely the blood in his urine and lungs, as, he claims, it was unrealistic for him to request his torturers for such a medical report. 5.4 In relation to his identity, the complainant submits that he provided the Tribunal with his original Birth Certificate, which states that both his parents are Tatars, as it is the only document in Uzbekistan that can provide such detail with regard to ethnicity. He claims that the argument regarding contradictions about his identity documents was used by the Canadian authorities to undermine his credibility and it would have been easier to clarify his identity if they had contacted his lawyer at the beginning of the asylum process. He argues that he would have used the official channels to immigrate to Germany as he had planned, if he had not been threatened by an Uzbek investigator. 5.5 The complainant argues that inconsistencies in relation to the documents that he used to come to Canada, could be due to lack of other evidence. He submits that when he came to Canada he did not have documents on him as he had destroyed them in Iceland. He had destroyed his passport earlier upon arrival in Germany after he passed customs control allegedly in fear of deportation to Uzbekistan. Issues and proceedings before the Committee: Consideration of admissibility: 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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, paragraph 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. 6.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 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. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, as the complainant failed to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 11 May 2006 on his humanitarian and compassionate application. It also notes that the complainant does not challenge the effectiveness of the remedy of judicial review, although he had an opportunity to do so. In this regard, the Committee recalls that during its twentyfifth session, in its final observations on the report of the State party, it considered the question of requests for ministerial stays on humanitarian grounds. It noted the apparent lack of independence of the civil servants deciding on such “appeals”, and at the possibility that a person could be expelled while an application for review was underway. It concluded that those considerations could detract from effective protection of the rights covered by article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It observed that, although the right to assistance on humanitarian grounds is a remedy under the law, such assistance is granted by a minister on the basis of purely humanitarian criteria, and not only on a legal basis, and is thus exgratia in nature. The Committee has also observed that when judicial review is granted, the Federal Court returns the file to the body, which took the original decision or to another decision-making body and does not itself conduct the review of the case or hand down any decision. Rather, the decision depends on the discretionary authority of a minister and thus, of the executive. The Committee adds that, since an appeal on humanitarian grounds is not 6