CRPD/C/23/D/73/2019 5.3 The Committee recalls that domestic remedies need not be exhausted if they objectively have no prospect of success, but that mere doubts as to the effectiveness of those remedies do not absolve the author from the obligation to exhaust them. 1 The Committee considers that the author has not effectively shown that bringing a complaint to the South African courts would objectively have no prospect of success. The Committee notes that the author’s comment that legal aid fees are steep is of a general nature. The author has not explained whether he undertook any efforts to obtain access to low-cost or free legal aid for the purpose of a court application, or whether there were any circumstances rendering it unreasonable for him to undertake such efforts. 2 Further, the author has provided no substantiation demonstrating that his health situation inhibits him from submitting a claim to the South African courts, including through a lawyer. Finally, the Committee considers that the contention that judicial proceedings cost taxpayers money is immaterial to the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that it is precluded from considering the communication under article 2 (d) of the Optional Protocol. C. Conclusion 6 The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 (d) of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author of the communication. 1 2 D.L. v. Sweden (CRPD/C/17/D/31/2015), para. 7.3. S.C. v. Brazil (CRPD/C/12/D/10/2013), para. 6.5. 5