CCPR/C/113/D/2091/2011 quality of medical care available in a State is certainly not irrelevant when considering whether an individual living with schizophrenia is able to manage symptoms such as noncompliance. Support resources such as those available in Canada are thus crucial in this regard. Conversely, a community-based health-care system such as the one in place in Jamaica is not suitable for the author, who lacks support and a family network in Jamaica. 7.5 With respect to article 6, the author clarifies that he does not claim that the right to life encompasses a duty upon Canada to protect him from poverty and to guarantee him adequate housing and health care in Jamaica. The author does not fear homelessness; he fears death. By removing him to Jamaica, the State party failed to protect his right to life because persons with his specific profile, that is, homeless persons with a mental illness who do not have access to adequate housing or care, cannot manage symptoms of mental disability. As such, the author was exposed to a major risk to his physical integrity and his life in Jamaica. 7.6 As for articles 17 and 23, the author reiterates his prior submissions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Interim measures 8. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that it was not materially in a position to give effect to the Committee’s request not to deport the author to Jamaica while his case was under consideration by the Committee, given that the request was only received by the relevant Canadian authorities after the plane taking the author to Jamaica had taken off. The Committee nonetheless regrets that, based on the State party’s opinion that it was not appropriate for the Committee to issue interim measures in that case, the State party did not consider the possibility of returning the author to Canada. The Committee recalls that, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, interim measures are essential to the Committee’s role under the Optional Protocol, and that failure to implement interim measures is incompatible with the obligation to respect in good faith the procedure of individual communications established under the Optional Protocol.22 Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 9.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the ground of failure by the author to sufficiently substantiate his claims under articles 2 (3), 6 (1), 7, 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant; and its assertion that the author’s allegations under articles 6, 7, 9 and 10, concerning facts which arose after the author’s removal to Jamaica, should be declared inadmissible ratione materiae. 9.4 The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for admissibility purposes, his allegations under articles 9 and 10, with respect to his alleged arrest and detention by the Jamaican police. The author has failed to establish, prima facie, that these were risks of which the State party knew, or of which it should have known at the time of 22 See general comment No. 33 (2008) on the obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, para. 19. 13