CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 Author’s further comments 7. In a communication dated 31 August 2015, the author reports that he filed a humanitarian and compassion application on 29 July 2015. He also submits that such an application “does not stop removal until acceptance of the application at the first level” and argues that the State party’s submissions indicate that it intends to remove the author from Canada before his application or communication can be examined. The author further reiterates his contention that he would face a personal risk if returned to Bangladesh and cites several recent news articles indicating that journalists in Bangladesh are currently at risk of ill-treatment by the authorities.15 He therefore argues that interim measures remain necessary. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic 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 the author.16 The Committee notes that the author has a pending humanitarian and compassion application and that the State party considers this to be an effective remedy. While noting the State party’s observations that the humanitarian and compassion application could allow the author to reside permanently in Canada and that two recent communications before the Committee were discontinued because their humanitarian and compassion applications were granted, the Committee nevertheless notes that the author’s removal to Bangladesh has not been stayed during the consideration of his humanitarian and compassion application and therefore considers that this application 15 16 12 The author cites The Northeast Today (India), “Journalism at risk in Bangladesh”, 4 May 2015 (“Journalism in Bangladesh is at risk, as stated in a report by an international organisation, Article 19 yesterday. There has been an upsurge in atrocities on journalists in Bangladesh which arouses grave concern.”); International Federation for Human Rights, “Bangladesh: Two more journalists arrested; government trying to silence free speech”, 20 August 2015 (“Journalist Probir Sikdar, owner of the online newspaper Uttaradhikar Ekattor News, was arrested on the evening of 16 August 2015 from his Dhaka office for allegedly defaming a government minister on Facebook.… Similarly, on 18 August 2015 Shaukat Mahmud, President of the Bangladesh Federal Union of Journalists, was arrested by plain clothed policemen for allegedly committing an arson attack on a bus on 23 January 2015.”); and Committee to Protect Journalists, “Journalist arrested in Bangladesh under country’s ICT Act,” 17 August 2015 (relating to the arrest of Probir Sikar and stating: “Sikdar was arrested following a complaint that alleged he had ‘tarnished the image’ of a cabinet member belonging to the ruling Awami League party, according to news reports. In a Facebook post earlier this month, Sikdar said he had been threatened and that three individuals, including Khandaker Mosharraf Hossain, Minister of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives, as well as a convicted war criminal and a businessman, should be held responsible if something happened to him, according to police cited in the independent newspaper The Daily Star.”) See Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4; communication No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5.