CCPR/C/116/D/2060/2011 an application for leave and judicial review against the negative decisions within the proceedings for refugee protection before the Immigration and Refugee Board and the PRRA procedure. The Committee also takes note of the author’s allegation that judicial review of these decisions is not an effective remedy since it has a very low prospect of success. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all judicial remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author,18 and that mere doubts about the effectiveness of domestic remedies do not relieve the author of a communication from the duty to exhaust them.19 The Committee considers that the author has thus failed to exhaust domestic remedies regarding his claims of violation of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant concerning his risk of persecution if deported to Zimbabwe. Accordingly, this part of communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee observes that the State party has not challenged the exhaustion of domestic remedies in relation to the author’s claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 regarding the risk he would face if deported owing to his HIV-positive status as well as articles 17 and 23(1) in connection with his separation from his family. The Committee observes that the author raised these claims within the humanitarian and compassionate proceedings that concluded on 4 May 2010 with the Federal Court’s dismissal of his application for leave and judicial review. Therefore, the Committee considers that these claims meet the admissibility requirement under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. Furthermore, the Committee considers that such claims are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and that they should be considered on their merits. 6.7 The Committee therefore concludes that the author’s communication is admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 (1) and 7 in relation to the alleged risk he would face in Zimbabwe as a person who is HIV-positive and under articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant in connection with the interference with his family. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his removal from Canada to Zimbabwe has exposed him to a violation of his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant since he would not be able to access the medical treatment that he requires as a result of his HIV and Mantoux status or to afford antiretroviral medication, which puts his life and health at serious risk. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that its authorities had gathered information that indicated that antiretroviral medications are available in pharmacies in Zimbabwe for about US$ 30 per month or can be obtained for free at several institutions; that the author has family in Zimbabwe on whose support he can rely; that he was not taking any antiretroviral medications during his stay in the State party, by his own choice; that he would be able to purchase those medications privately in Zimbabwe; and that in the light of his business/work experience and education, he is better placed than the 18 19 12 See communications No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5; and No. 433/1990, A.P.A. v. Spain, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 25 March 1994, para. 6.2. See communication No. 1580/2007, F.M. v. Canada, para. 6.3; No. 397/1990, P.S. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 1992, para. 5.4; No. 420/1990, G.T. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 October 1992, para. 6.3; and No. 550/1993, Faurisson v. France, Views adopted on 8 November 1996, para. 6.1.