6.5 The author does not dispute that he did not apply for a stay of his removal and did not apply for a ministerial waiver on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In this regard, the Committee first notes that an application for a ministerial waiver on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is a statutory remedy. Moreover, it notes that in case of refusal of the waiver by the minister, a judicial review is open to the author with the possibility of applying for a stay of removal. Finally, even if the author claims that those remedies were illusory, he has furnished no evidence that they would be unlikely to succeed. The Committee therefore considers that the conditions laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met. 7. The Committee consequently decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision may be reviewed under rule 109 of the Committee's rules of procedure upon receipt of a request by or on behalf of the author containing information to the effect that the reasons for inadmissibility no longer apply; (c) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party, the author and his representative. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] 4. Communication No. 121/1998 Submitted by: S.H. (name withheld) [represented by counsel] Alleged victim: The author State party: Norway Date of communication: 23 October 1998 The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 19 November 1999 Adopts the following: Decision on admissibility 1.1 The author of the communication is S.H., an Ethiopian citizen born in 1965 currently residing in Norway, where he has applied for asylum. His application, however, has been rejected and he is at risk of 178