CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 judicial commission in response to sectarian attacks. 20 The State party also considers that the complainant’s claim that the police will charge him with blasphemy at the urging of his former in-laws and torture him if he returns to Pakistan is highly speculative. The complainant’s allegations do not fit within the definition of torture set out in article 1 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim 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 (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 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee must ascertain whether the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies; this rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of those remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has been eligible to apply for a new PRRA since 22 December 2011 but has not done so, and that the new process would allow the complainant to present his new risk-related evidence that has not yet been evaluated by the State party’s authorities. It also notes the complainant’s assertion that a new PRRA application would not stay his removal. It takes note of the State party’s observation that although a statutory stay of removal is not available pending the determination of a second or subsequent PRRA, an application may be made to the Federal Court for a judicial stay of removal pending the disposition of the PRRA application, and that an administrative deferral of removal may also be requested. However, the Committee observes that the second PRRA process would not shield the complainant from removal to Pakistan during the assessment of the risk he might face in Pakistan in the light of the new evidence. It notes that the acceptance rate for PRRA applications appears to be very low,21 and that applicants who have received a negative decision from the Immigration and Refugee Board or on a prior PRRA application must wait 12 months before applying for another PRRA procedure.22 The Committee observes that although PRRA decisions are subject to judicial review, the PRRA procedure itself does not afford a hearing before a judicial tribunal but instead involves an evaluation made by a single administrative officer.23 Accordingly, it considers that the second PRRA process cannot be considered as offering the author an effective remedy. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies because he abandoned his refugee claim and failed to apply to have it reopened. The Committee observes that while the complainant asserts that he was unable to pursue his refugee claim due to the error of the State party, whereby the Refugee Protection Division sent his hearing notice to an incorrect address, the State party has 20 21 22 23 16 Ibid. See Canada, “Formative evaluation of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Program”, in which it is stated that between 2002 and 2006, the PRRA acceptance rate was 2.7 per cent. Available from www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/evaluation/prra/section4.asp. See Canada, “Limits on pre-removal risk assessments and applications for humanitarian and compassionate consideration”. Available from www.cic.gc.ca/english/refugees/reform-ppra.asp. See Canada, “Processing PRRA applications: PRRA decisions”. Available from www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/tools/refugees/prra/decisions.asp.