CAT/C/53/D/520/2012 6.6 Finally, the State party reiterates that, even if the complainant is given the benefit of the doubt concerning her alleged detention, at no point has she ever alleged that she was tortured or otherwise mistreated while in detention. Thus, even if it is accepted that the complainant has previously been detained, that in no way supports a finding that she would be tortured and killed if she were detained again. The State party therefore maintains that the complainant has failed to establish that she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture if returned to Ethiopia. 6.7 Taking into account the above, the State party requests that the Committee consider the present communication to be inadmissible on the grounds of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. In the alternative, the complainant’s communication is inadmissible on the grounds of non-substantiation. If the Committee considers the communication to be admissible, the State party requests the Committee to consider the communication to be without merit. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained 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, paragraph 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. 7.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, as the complainant failed to apply to the Federal Court for leave to apply for a judicial review of the PRRA decision dated 1 June 2012, and did not apply for permanent resident status in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s argument that the remedies in question would not constitute an effective remedy in her case. 7.3 The Committee notes that, according to section 18.1(4) of the Canadian Federal Courts Act, the Federal Court may quash a negative PRRA decision if satisfied that a tribunal acted without jurisdiction; that it failed to observe a principle of natural justice or procedural fairness; that it erred in law in making a decision; that it based its decision on an erroneous finding of fact; that it acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or that it acted in any other way that was contrary to law.20 The Committee observes that none of the grounds above include a review on the merits of the complainant’s claim that she would be ill-treated if returned to Ethiopia.21 7.4 Further, with regard to the complainant’s failure to apply for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, the Committee recalls that, at its twenty-fifth session, in its concluding observations concerning the examination of the third periodic report of the State party, it considered the question of requests for ministerial stays on humanitarian grounds. It noted the apparent lack of independence of the civil servants deciding on such a remedy and the possibility that a person could be expelled while such an application was being considered. It observed that those circumstances could detract from effective protection of the rights covered by article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It concluded that, although the right to assistance on humanitarian grounds may be a remedy under the law, such assistance is granted by a minister on purely humanitarian grounds, 20 21 See para. 4.6 above. See for example communication No. 319/2007, Nirmal Singh v. Canada (see footnote 6), para. 8.8. 11