CAT/C/64/D/615/2014 6.9 Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied with the argument of the State party that, in this particular case, there were remedies, both available and effective, which the complainant has not exhausted.25 In the light of this finding, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine the State party’s assertion that the communication is also inadmissible as incompatible with the Convention, or manifestly unfounded. However, taking into account the background reports on the situation of gays and lesbians in Uganda (see para. 4.6 above), the Committee considers that the complainant as a lesbian would face a risk of arrest if she were returned to Uganda. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee invites the State party to ensure that the complainant can have access to remedies available on appeal, including the necessary legal aid, to challenge the negative decisions that allowed for her to be forcibly removed, including an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, given that the complainant is a single mother with a minor daughter who is a Canadian citizen, who is not subject to removal from Canada.26 6.10 Therefore the Committee decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 25 26 See J.S. v. Canada, para. 6.6; S.S. and P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/702/2015), para. 6.6; Shodeinde v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/621/2014), para. 6.8; and U.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/767/2016), para. 6.7. See Shodeinde v. Canada, para. 7 (c). 9