CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 position, wants to return as soon as possible to India and makes no mention of being at risk there, the State party would not be seeking to return the complainant to Canada. 8.9 As for the admissibility of the complaint, the State party maintains that the complainant did not exhaust domestic remedies because he could have, but did not, apply to the Federal Court for leave and for judicial review of the decision on the pre-removal risk assessment, the decision on humanitarian and compassionate considerations, and the decision not to process his request for an administrative deferral of removal. Because the function of judicial review in Canada is to ensure the legality, reasonableness and fairness of the decision-making process and its outcomes, such a review constitutes an effective remedy, which was available to the complainant. Judicial review does not require a hearing to constitute an effective remedy because the reviewing court shows no deference to the administrative decision maker. The State party’s approach is consistent with the approach accepted by the European Court of Human Rights in a number of cases. 40 8.10 Additionally, the State party reiterates that the complaint is inadmissible because it is manifestly ill-founded. The alleged facts submitted by the complainant are essentially the same as those of his claim for refugee protection, which the complainant has admitted are false. Furthermore, the complainant’s claim and evidence have already been considered by several competent, impartial domestic decision makers, who have consistently determined that the evidence relied on by the complainant does not support a finding that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk in India. The complaint is without merit for the same reasons. 8.11 Furthermore, the State party believes that the communication is also inadmissible because it constitutes an abuse of the right to file a submission, given that, in the affidavit of 25 July 2018, the complainant admits that his claim was false. 41 Issues and proceedings before the Committee The State party’s failure to cooperate and to respect the Committee’s request for interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedures 9.1 The Committee notes that the adoption of interim measures pursuant to rule 114 of its rules of procedure, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention, is vital to the role entrusted to the Committee under that article. Failure to respect the interim measures requested by the Committee, in particular through such irreparable action as extraditing an alleged victim, undermines the protection of the rights enshrined in the Convention. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that it removed the complainant erroneously due to oversight of the interim measure. It also takes note of the State party’s observation that its authorities have since taken corrective measures to ensure a similar situation will not reoccur. 9.3 The Committee recalls that the non-refoulement principle codified in article 3 of the Convention is absolute. It observes that any State party that has made a declaration under article 22 (1) of the Convention recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and consider complaints from individuals who claim to be victims of violations of the provisions of the Convention. By making such a declaration, States parties implicitly undertake to cooperate with the Committee in good faith by providing it with the means to examine the complaints submitted to it and, after such examination, to communicate its comments to the State party and the complainant. By failing to respect the request for an interim measure transmitted to the State party on 19 November 2013 and reiterated on two occasions since, the State party seriously failed in its obligations under article 22 of the Convention. 40 41 12 See European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. United Kingdom (application No. 14038/88), judgment of 7 July 1989; and Vilvarajah and others v. United Kingdom (application Nos. 13163/87; 13164/87; 13165/87; 13447/87; 13448/87), judgment of 30 October 1991, para. 126. On 1 April 2019, the complainant was requested to submit comments on the State party’s submission by 3 June 2019. He did not do so, despite a reminder sent on 19 June 2019.