CAT/C/43/D/307/2006 application” after the Federal Court had dismissed the complainant’s motion to stay his removal. 7.3 The State party recalls that counsel misconstrues the requirement for a complainant to establish that he is at personal risk of torture, by arguing that everyone in Iraq, including the complainant, is at risk of torture, since the human rights situation is so poor in Iraq. The Committee’s jurisprudence10 and General Comment on article 3 established that poor country conditions are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to substantiate the allegation that a complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture upon return to his or her country of origin. Complainant’s additional comments 8. On 1 October 2008, counsel informed the Committee that he had contacted the complainant through a relative, since the complainant was still hiding and did not want to disclose his whereabouts. The complainant was depressed; his former Canadian wife had divorced him. His mother and sister had left Iraq for Egypt and were afraid to return. His only brother who had stayed in Iraq was assassinated on 3 February 2008 because of his Sunni adherence and name. The complainant therefore had no siblings or parents remaining in Iraq. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any complaint, unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely, after a fair trial, to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. 9.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, as the complainant failed to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 28 June 1999 on his humanitarian and compassionate application and of the PRRA decision dated 21 January 2005, as well as to submit the required documents to complete his application for leave with regard to the decision dated 30 October 2006 refusing to defer his removal. It also notes that the complainant does not challenge the effectiveness of the remedy of judicial review, although he had an opportunity to do so. In this regard, the Committee recalls that when judicial review is granted by the Federal Court in cases concerning pre-removal risk assessment or humanitarian and compassionate decisions by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Federal Court refers the matter back to a different immigration officer of the same decision-making body.11 However, the Committee also observes that this does not imply that applications for leave or for judicial review are mere formalities that, as a general rule, need not be exhausted by a complainant for purposes of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention.12 Rather, the Federal Court may, in 10 11 12 8 The State party refers to Communication No. 286/2006, M.R.A. v. Sweden, passim; Communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, at para. 7.7. See Communication No. 133/1999, Falcon Ríos v. Canada, at para. 7.3. See Communication No. 273/2005, T.A. v. Canada, at para. 6.3. GE.09-46716