Citizenship and Immigration. As part of the agreement, the complainant was required to provide new PRRA submissions by 5 November 2004, which was extended to 26 November 2004, while a stay of deportation was granted on 22 October 2004. The second PRRA was denied on 8 June 2005. The complainant was advised that he was to complete his departure requirements on 18 June 2005. An application for leave and judicial review of this PRRA decision was filed at the Federal Court on 30 June 2005. A motion to stay the removal was filed in the Federal Court on 8 July 2005. In the meantime, the complainant was notified by the Canada Border Services Agency that a travel document to Myanmar had been obtained on his behalf, and that he was scheduled to be deported on 18 July 2005.1 Action Committee for Free Burma, is a supporter of the National League for Democracy, the Burmese Children Fund as well as the Myanmar Heritage Cultural Association. There is currently a warrant out for his arrest in Myanmar for his involvement with the soccer “union”. In addition, the complainant argues that the fact the Canadian authorities have applied for, and received, a passport on his behalf has alerted the Myanmar authorities. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 On 21 December 2005, the State party contested the admissibility of the communication on two grounds. Firstly, it argues that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies. On 26 October 2005 the Federal Court granted the complainant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision on his pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA). The hearing on the application for judicial review was scheduled for 24 January 2006. If his application is successful, the complainant will be entitled to a new PRRA assessment. If the application is not successful, the decision of the Federal Court can be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal if the Federal Court judge certifies that the case raises a serious question of general importance, under section 74 (d) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). A decision of the Federal Court of Appeal can be appealed, with leave, to the Supreme Court of Canada. Further, if the judicial review is not successful, the complainant could also apply for a further PRRA on the basis of any new evidence that may have arisen since the last determination, although in that case he would not have the benefit of a statutory stay of removal. However, he could apply for a judicial stay of removal pending the disposition of that application. The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee to find that judicial review is widely and consistently accepted to be an effective remedy.2 2.6 On 15 July 2005 the Federal Court granted the stay of execution of the removal order, on the basis that the officer who performed the complainant’s PRRA assessment had attributed little weight to the arrest warrant and had not clearly indicated whether the warrant was genuine or not. 2.7 In light of this finding, on 3 August 2005 the Special Rapporteur on New Communications and Interim Measures of the Committee lifted the provisional interim measures previously issued by the Committee. The complaint 3.1 The complainant argues that he would be at risk of arbitrary arrest, beatings and torture if he were returned to Myanmar, where human rights violations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention are said to be frequent. 3.2 Counsel refers to the United States Department of State Report for Burma (2004) and its reports of the human rights violations in Myanmar, including the fact that in January 2004 seven students who had formed an illegal football ‘union’ were given sentences ranging from seven to fifteens years imprisonment. Counsel also provides reports from non-governmental sources containing information on the human rights situation in Myanmar, and that those suspected of prodemocratic political activity are killed, arrested and detained without trial. Counsel refers to evidence from a medical training programme manager at the International Rescue Committee confirming that the Burmese Government regularly detains those deportees that it believes left Myanmar for political reasons. 4.2 In the view of the State party, the PRRA procedure is an effective remedy which should be exhausted, contrary to the Committee’s jurisprudence.3 The State party notes that during its examination the complainant would not be removed. If successful, the complainant will become a protected person and barring serious security concerns will be eligible to apply for permanent resident status, and ultimately citizenship. It also considers that the PRRA is more comprehensive than the ‘post-determination refugee claimants in 3.3 The complainant highlights that he has been active in pro-democratic Burmese groups since his arrival in Canada. Specifically, he is involved in the 2 The State party refers to, inter alia, communication N° 183/2001 B.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 11.6. 3 The State party refers to communications N° 133/1999, Falcon Ríos v. Canada, Views adopted on 23 November 2004, para. 7.4, and N° 232/2003, M.M. v. Canada, admissibility decision of 7 November 2005, para. 6.4. 1 The State party subsequently informed the Committee that the removal order had not been enforced. 8