CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 6.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all judicial remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to them. 39 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author has not exhausted all domestic remedies, as he did not apply for an application made on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which became available to him in February 2014. However, the Committee notes that the application does not shield the author from deportation to Sri Lanka and therefore cannot be described as offering him an effective remedy.40 Therefore, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 6.4 The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The Committee notes that the author has explained the reasons why he fears to be returned to Sri Lanka, based on the events prior to his departure from Sri Lanka, his profile as Tamil and failed asylum seeker. The Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has provided sufficient details and documentary evidence regarding his personal risk of facing death, ill-treatment or torture and finds this part of the communication admissible. 6.5 With regard to the author’s claims under article 9(1) of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that its non-refoulement obligations do not extend to potential breaches of this provision and that these claims are therefore inadmissible because they are incompatible with the scope of this provision. The Committee considers that the author has not clearly articulated how his removal to Sri Lanka would violate the State’s obligations under this article. Accordingly, the Committee finds that the author failed to substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, his allegations under articles 9 (1) and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.41 6.6 The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant and proceeds to their consideration on the merits. Consideration on the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk 39 40 41 See Warsame v. Canada (note 21 above), para. 7.4; and communication No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5. See communications No. 2366/2014, X v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 8.3, No.1898/2009, Choudhary v. Canada, Views adopted on 28 October 2013, para. 8.3; and Warsame v. Canada (note 21 above). See communications No. 2280/2013, Y v. Canada, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 6.5, and X v. Canada (note 40 above). 13