CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 observed that the same mail was also sent to the complainant’s counsel, and that the complainant had failed to notify the Immigration and Refugee Board, as instructed, that his counsel was no longer pursuing his case. It also observes that although the complainant asserts that he relied on the erroneous advice of consultants that his abandoned refugee claim could not be reopened and that he was required to be represented by a lawyer in such proceedings, the consultants were apparently privately retained. The Committee recalls that errors by privately retained counsel cannot be attributed to the State party. 24 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that in the circumstances of the present case, the complainant has not substantiated his assertion that the refugee claim process was an unavailable or ineffective remedy. 7.4 Accordingly, in the light of the complainant’s failure to apply to have his refugee claim reopened before the Immigration and Refugee Board, the Committee is satisfied with the argument of the State party that, in this particular case, there was a remedy which was both available and effective, and which the complainant has not exhausted. In the light of this finding, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine the State party’s assertion that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 24 See H.E.-M. v. Canada, para. 6.4, and R.S.A.N. v. Canada, para. 6.4. 17