PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture which had rejected the legal arguments that the complainants wished to put forward. The HRC held that a constitutional motion in this case “would be bound to fail and there was thus no effective remedy still to exhaust.” 162 In Faurisson v. France, the complainant was not required to appeal his case to the French Court of Appeal as his co-accused had already lost his appeal before that court.163 On the other hand, the Committees may require the complainant to exhaust this remedy if the relevant superior judgment is a weak precedent. An example of a weak precedent may arise where the higher court judgment is decided by a thin majority, or where the law was largely uncharted prior to that decision.164 v. Expensive Remedies The Committees may take into account the financial means of the complainant and the availability of legal aid.165 In Henry v. Jamaica, the complainant argued that he could not pursue a constitutional remedy in the Jamaican Supreme Constitutional Court due to his lack of funds and the fact that legal aid was not available for constitutional motions. The HRC held that “it is not the author’s indigence which absolves him from pursuing constitutional remedies, but the State party’s unwillingness or inability to provide legal aid for this purpose”.166 The HRC consequently held that the complainant did not need to pursue the constitutional motion as it was neither available nor effective. On the other hand, in P.S. v. Denmark, the HRC held that simply because a person may have doubts over the financial considerations of a remedy, he or she is not absolved from exhausting that remedy.167 This case may be distinguished from Henry v. Jamaica as the complainant did not even attempt to pursue any judicial remedies nor did he show that he was unable to afford to pursue such remedies.168 If a person can afford to pursue an available remedy, he or she must do so even if that remedy is expensive.169 Furthermore, a person must actively seek and fail to get legal aid (unless there is no provision for legal aid in the relevant State) before he or she can be absolved from seeking a costly remedy.170 In Warsame v. Canada, the HRC noted that: 162 HRC, Pratt and Morgan v. Jamaica, Comm. Nos. 210/1986, 225/1987, para.12.5. Ironically, the Privy Council did ultimately overturn its previous case law on the relevant issue in a case brought by Pratt and Morgan in Pratt and Morgan v. Attorney –General for Jamaica (1993) 2 AC 1. See Section 3.2.11(b). 163 HRC, Faurisson v. France, Comm. No. 550/1993, para. 6.1. 164 See, e.g., Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Barbaro v. Australia, CERD 7/1995, para. 10.5. This case was decided under the individual complaint mechanism under the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). 165 Joseph and Castan (2013), para. 6.29. 166 HRC, Henry v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 230/1987, para. 7.3. 167 HRC, P.S. v. Denmark, Comm. No. 397/1990, para. 5.4. 168 Joseph and Castan (2013), para. 6.30. 169 See, e.g., HRC, R.W. v. Jamaica, Comm. No. 340/1988, para. 6.2. 170 See, e.g., HRC, G.T. v. Canada, Comm. No. 420/1990, para. 6.3. 69