CAT/C/43/D/307/2006 appropriate cases, look at the substance of a case.13 It may in this context indicate the reasons for which it remits a case back to the body which took the original decision and for which it deems that said decision needs to be reconsidered.14 The Committee recalls that, while according to its jurisprudence an appeal against a negative decision on a humanitarian and compassionate application is not a remedy that needs to be exhausted,15 the complainant failed to diligently exhaust remedies with respect to two other negative decisions. In the present case, the Committee does not consider that applications for leave to apply for judicial review of the PRRA and humanitarian and compassionate decisions would have been ineffective remedies in the complainant’s case, in the absence of any particular circumstances adduced by him in support of such an assumption. 9.4 As regards the complainant’s explanation that he did not file an application for leave to apply for judicial review of the PRRA decision of 21 January 2005 because his then lawyer had advised him that domestic remedies were exhausted, the Committee notes that the complainant has not argued that he was represented by a State-appointed lawyer at the relevant time. It recalls that errors made by a privately retained lawyer cannot normally be attributed to the State party,16 and concludes that the complainant has failed to advance sufficient elements which would justify his failure to avail himself of the possibility to apply for judicial review of his PRRA decision, or of the humanitarian and compassionate decision of 28 June 1999. Nor has he provided reasons for his failure to complete his application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of 30 October 2006 on his request to defer his removal. 9.5 The Committee is therefore of the view that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 10. Accordingly, the Committee decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the complainant. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee's annual report to the General Assembly.] 13 14 15 16 GE.09-46716 Ibid. See, e.g., Communication No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, at para. 11.6. Falcon Ríos v. Canada, loc. cit.; Communication No. 232/2003, Mabrouki v. Canada, at para. 6.3. Communication No. 284/2006, R.S.A.N. v. Canada, at para. 6.4. 9