PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture when irreparable harm can no longer be avoided. In Tebourski v. France, the author had been deported to Tunisia where he alleged he would be at risk of being tortured. The State party claimed that the complaint was inadmissible because the complainant did not appeal against the decision taken by the interim relief judge ordering the execution of the ministerial deportation order. To such arguments, the Committee held: A remedy which remains pending after the act which it was designed to avert has already taken place, by definition, becomes pointless, since the irreparable harm can no longer be avoided, even if a subsequent judgment were to find in favor of the complainant.152 A remedy may also be considered “unavailable” in practice if the removal order is enforced without granting the author reasonable time to pursue the remaining remedy or remedies. In X. v. Sweden, the author was deported shortly after the decision of the Migration Court was notified to the author, depriving him of the right to appeal within three weeks of the date of issuance of the decision, as provided by the law. The Committee considered that “when further domestic remedies are available to asylum-seekers who risk deportation to a third country, they must be allowed a reasonable length of time to pursue the remaining remedies before the deportation measure is enforced”.153 Also in the context of remedies set up to challenge an order of removal, both the CAT Committee and the HRC have developed a body of case-law on the effectiveness and need to pursue certain domestic remedies available in certain countries. Canadian law, for instance, has been seriously challenged by both Committees.154 As a result of the discretionary nature of the remedy and the fact that it does not stay or prevent removal, authors do not need to resort to a remedy on humanitarian and compassionate (H&C) grounds for purposes of admissibility.155 In F.K.A.G. and others v. Australia, the authors, held in Australian immigration facilities, sought to challenge the lawfulness of their protracted and potentially indefinite detention, which was mandatory due to their condition as “unlawful non-citizens” or unauthorized offshore migrants.156 The HRC stated that the State party had not shown its courts to have “the authority to make individualized 152 CAT Committee, Tebourski v. France, Comm. No. 300/2006, para. 7.3. See also HRC, Weiss v. Austria, Comm. No. 1821/2008, para. 8.3. 153 HRC, X. v. Sweden, Comm. No. 1833/2008, para. 8.4. 154 HRC, Thuraisamy v. Canada, Comm. No. 1912/2009, para. 6.4. 155 HRC, Warsame v. Canada, Comm. No. 1959/2010, para. 7.4; see also, inter alia, CAT Committee: T.I. v. Canada, Comm. No. 333/2007, para. 6.3; Yassin v. Canada, Comm. No. 307/2006, para. 9.3; Ríos v. Canada, Comm. No. 133/1999, para. 7.3. The pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) application in Canada has received similar criticism (see HRC, Thuraisamy v. Canada, Comm. No. 1912/2009, para. 6.4). 156 See Section 3.2.6 for further analysis of this case. 67