CCPR/C/119/D/2613/2015 6.9 The State party maintains that, although the impact of the above measures is unknown and gang-related violence persists, El Salvador is engaged in significant efforts to address gang-related problems in the country. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because the author has failed to apply for an administrative deferral of removal from the Canada Border Service Agency. It also notes the argument of the author that the administrative deferral of removal is temporary, limited to the assessment of new evidence and largely depends on the discretion of the Agency enforcement officer. It further notes the State party’s argument that a negative decision on the deferral of removal can be subjected to judicial review and that it is also possible to bring a motion for a stay of removal pending the outcome of the judicial review application. The Committee notes, however, that such judicial review is made mainly on the basis of procedural issues and does not involve a review of the merits of the case. In view thereof, and taking into account that the author submitted three applications under the pre-removal risk assessment procedure, one application under the humanitarian and compassionate procedure and applications to the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court, the Committee considers that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies in compliance with the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations under articles 2 (3), 6, 7, 17 and 23 (1) are insufficiently substantiated. As regards the author’s allegations under articles 6 and 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), the Committee is of the view that, for purposes of admissibility, the complainant has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that his removal to El Salvador would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm and that no effective remedies to challenge his removal were available to him. Accordingly, the Committee declares the claim admissible. 7.5 With regard to the author’s allegations under articles 17 and 23 (1), the Committee notes the author’s claims that, if he were killed or arbitrarily detained owing to his removal to El Salvador, the integrity of his family unit would be harmed. It also notes the author’s submission that his wife was told by the MS-13 gang that the only reason that she and her daughters were alive was because they knew that one day the author would return to them. 54 It further notes that the author has not provided any further information, evidence or explanation on how his rights under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant would be violated by the State party through his removal to El Salvador in a manner that would pose a substantial risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.55 The Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 7.6 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations under article 9 of the Covenant are incompatible ratione materiae. In that connection, it also notes the author’s claims that the scope of the protection of security of the person obliges the State to protect individuals from foreseeable threats to life or bodily integrity from private actors, and that he faces a foreseeable risk of arbitrary detention, considering the involvement of MS-13 in kidnapping. The Committee finds the author’s allegations 54 55 See footnote 6 above. See general comment 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. 13