CAT/C/23/D/86/1997 page 8 6.2 The State party contends that the author has not exhausted domestic remedies. The Committee notes in this respect that the author tried the following remedies: − application for refugee status to the Immigration and Refugee Board (rejected in February 1996); − application for leave to seek a judicial review of the rejection (rejected in June 1996); − application before a post-claim determination officer of the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration (rejected on 23 September 1996); − two applications for leave to seek a judicial review of the decision of the “rejected claims review officer” to the Federal Court (the first one was withdrawn and the second one was rejected in January 1997 for not having been submitted on time); − application for “ministerial dispensation on humanitarian grounds” (denied as unfounded). 6.3 The State party claims that the author should have completed his application for judicial review of the decision of the “post-claim determination officer” and that he could still try to apply for judicial review of the denial of ministerial dispensation on humanitarian grounds. The Committee considers that even if the author claims that these remedies are illusory, he has furnished no evidence that they would be unreasonably prolonged or unlikely to bring effective relief. The Committee therefore notes that the conditions laid down in article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention have not been met. 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.] -----