CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013 life or practise his religion, and his rights under articles 6 (1), 7, 9 (1), 17, 18 and 19 41 of the Covenant would therefore be infringed. He thus asks the Committee to recognize these violations in his case. Additional observations by the State party on admissibility and merits 8. On 23 March 2018, the State party submitted additional observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication in response to the author’s comments, which had been transmitted to it for information on 17 July 2017. It recalls that the H&C application is a fair and equitable administrative procedure, subject to judicial review, which, in the event of a favourable decision, would allow the author to remain in Canada, and that the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 9.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic 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. 42 The Committee notes that the author has not submitted a humanitarian and compassionate application and that the State party considers this to be an effective remedy. While noting the State party’s observations that the humanitarian and compassionate application could allow the author to reside permanently in Canada, the Committee observes that the author’s removal has not been stayed pending the consideration of a humanitarian and compassionate application and therefore considers that this application cannot be regarded as offering him an effective remedy under the circumstances.43 Accordingly, it considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 9.4 With regard to the author’s claims under articles 9 (1), 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that its non-refoulement obligations do not extend to potential breaches of these provisions, and that these claims are therefore inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee further notes the State party’s observation that the author has not clearly articulated how his removal to Egypt would violate the State party’s obligations under these articles and notes that the author does not provide arguments in support of these allegations. The Committee concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his allegations under articles 9 (1), 17, 18 and 27 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.44 9.5 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol due to insufficient substantiation. With regard to the author’s allegations under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, the Committee 41 42 43 44 GE.18-09612 Here, the author invokes article 19 of the Covenant, while in his initial communication and in his comments of 8 January 2016, he cites article 27. See Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4, and P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5. See Choudhary v. Canada, para. 8.3, and Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4. The Committee also notes that, in his additional observations, the author invoked article 19 rather than article 27; however, it considers that this was an error on the part of the author and it does not intend to address it. 13