CAT/C/60/D/699/2015 complainant was informed that the case had already been decided and that the judge had issued an order stating that the letter should be excluded from the file. 5.2 The complainant notes that he wishes to extend his complaint to a violation of article 4 of the Convention because of the actions of the Canada Border Services Agency in the case mentioned in a “marine migrant’s ministerial disclosure package”.10 Additionally, the complainant submits that the State party’s obligation to provide education and information regarding the prohibition of torture has not been respected, in violation of article 10 of the Convention. Finally, the complainant also claims a violation of article 12 of the Convention because the Government of Canada has an obligation to investigate the case of complicity in torture which is shown in that document. 5.3 The complainant submits that the State party’s position that he does not have the profile of someone who is at risk is strongly contradicted by the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines and by national jurisprudence of the Refugee Protection Division, the Immigration and Refugee Board and the Federal Court, as well as by the affidavit of an aid worker which gives a clear idea of the fate of returned asylum seekers to Sri Lanka, citing cases of torture and returnees who had to flee the country a second time. The complainant reiterates that he is at great risk of torture, forced disappearance or extrajudicial execution in Sri Lanka because he was on the MV Ocean Lady and comes from a Tamil Tigers “martyr family”. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of said remedies has been unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief. 11 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted in the present case because the complainant was eligible to file an application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. However, the Committee considers that the humanitarian and compassionate application is not an effective remedy for the purposes of admissibility given its discretionary and non-judicial nature, and the fact that it does not stay the removal of a complainant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) from examining the communication. 6.3 The Committee further recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility. 12 In this respect, the Committee considers that the complainant’s claims under articles 4, 10 and 12 of the Convention, which were presented in his submission dated 15 April 2016, are very general and unrelated to the specific situation of the author. The Committee therefore considers that these claims are manifestly unfounded and declares them inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.4 The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant concerning the personal risk he may run should he be returned to Sri Lanka 10 11 12 6 No further information is provided. See, inter alia, communication No. 307/2006, E.Y. v. Canada, decision adopted on 4 November 2009, para. 9.2. See, inter alia, communication No. 555/2013, Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 6.3.