Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies risk of being subjected to torture if deported to the Republic of Congo on account of his active involvement in political opposition activities in Switzerland and the fact that he had received threatening phone calls. However, none of the claims and evidence therein was presented to the Migration authorities in Switzerland before lodging the complaint to the CAT, even though they could have paved the way for the activation of appeal proceedings or a new asylum application. The CAT Committee dismissed the claims by stating that: [T]he complainant has failed to provide any valid reason for not submitting this evidence, which he knows to exist, to the national authorities during national proceedings.137 In exhausting domestic remedies, a person does not need specifically to invoke the relevant international provision so long as the substance of the complaint is addressed.138 For example, one may successfully exhaust domestic remedies with regard to an allegation of torture without referring explicitly to Article 7 of the ICCPR or the CAT in domestic proceedings, if those specific provisions have not been incorporated into a State’s domestic law. iii. Procedural Requirements for Domestic Remedies A complainant is expected to comply with all reasonable procedural requirements regarding the availability of domestic remedies. That is, an author must have exercised due diligence in the pursuit and exhaustion of available remedies.139 For example, a person may have a limited time in which to appeal a lower court’s decision to a higher court. If he or she fails to do so, it is likely that any subsequent complaint will be deemed inadmissible due to a failure to exhaust domestic remedies. This is so even if the failure to comply with local procedural requirements is the fault of a privately retained lawyer, rather than the complainant.140 Furthermore, ignorance of the law is no excuse.141 However, the complainant may sometimes be excused from strict application of the domestic remedies rule if his or her publicly appointed lawyer has failed to comply with local procedural requirements. For example, in Griffin v. Spain the complainant’s court-appointed counsel did not contact him at all, and consequently did not inform him of the remedies available to him. Although the complainant did not seek the relevant remedy within the time limit, the case was not held to be inadmissible on these grounds.142 137 CAT Committee, F.M-M. v. Switzerland, Comm. No. 399/2009, para. 6.5. 138 HRC, B.d.B. v. the Netherlands, Comm. No. 273/1989, para. 6.3. 139 See, e.g., HRC, A.P.A. v. Spain, Comm. No. 433/1990, para. 6.2. See also CAT Committee, Yassin v. Canada, Comm. No. 307/2006, para. 9.3. 140 See CAT Committee: R.S.A.N. v. Canada, Comm. No. 284/2006, para. 6.4; H.E-M. v. Canada, Comm. No. 395/2009, para. 6.4. 141 See, e.g., HRC, Soltes v. Czech Republic, Comm. No. 1034/2901, para. 7.4. 64