CAT/C/63/D/719/2015 9.4 Finally, with regard to the medical evidence put forward by the complainants in the form of the Institute report, the counsel notes that the State party has refused to conduct the counter-expertise in relation to the report, meaning that, whereas the complainants adduced (partially) credible statements and solid proof of their fear of torture, the State party failed to rigorously investigate their motives for seeking asylum. The counsel submits that the current political events in Armenia, and the escalation between, on the one hand, Mr. Abrahamyan and his Republican Party of Armenia and, on the other, Mr. Pashinyan, who is trying to become prime minister, only make the position of the complainants more vulnerable. The rising tension between the Republican Party of Armenia and Mr. Pashinyan means that any testimony by H.A. for or against Mr. Pashinyan will lead to Mr. Abrahamyan wanting to control and intimidate her. Thus, her past ordeal, reviewed against the backdrop of the current situation, must lead to the conclusion that there are still substantial reasons for believing that she runs a real risk of torture, if returned to Armenia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party argued that the complainants failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies because they failed to appeal against the decision by the Immigration and Naturalization Office to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division. The complainants had the opportunity to lodge an appeal with the Division, and to apply for a provisional measure to prevent their expulsion pending appeal. The Committee notes the complainants’ arguments that lodging an appeal does not have automatic suspensive effect, that the State party was able to refer to only three cases out of Division case law stretching back over more than 15 years, none of which demonstrates that the appeal would lead to considering any issues other than the validity of the Institute report as a new fact, and that a further appeal has virtually no prospect of success in determining the merits of the complainants’ asylum application. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the Division’s case law in effect provides a legal guarantee that, when an alien has applied for a provisional measure to prevent expulsion, he or she will not be expelled before the Division’s President has rendered a judgment on that application. 10.3 The Committee considers that mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy do not absolve the complainant from seeking to exhaust such remedy. 24 The Committee concludes that the complainants have failed to advance sufficient elements that would show that an appeal to the Division and an application for a provisional measure to prevent their expulsion pending appeal would have been ineffective in the present case, and have not justified their failure to avail themselves of these remedies. 10.4 Accordingly, the Committee accepts the argument of the State party that, in this particular case, there were remedies, both available and effective, which the complainants have not exhausted.25 In the light of this finding, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine the State party’s assertion that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 24 25 See, e.g., R.P. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/62/D/696/2015), para. 10.4. See, e.g., J.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/695/2015), para. 6.6; and S.S. and P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/702/2015), para. 6.6. 11