CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 there is nothing in the court’s decisions or the author’s submissions that provides proof that she is at risk, or that the authorities of Bangladesh are unable to protect her. The determinations of the Canadian decision makers were not based on whether the accused individuals were (or would remain) in prison; in fact, S. was not in prison. Rather, the assessment of risk was based on the considerations mentioned in the State party’s prior submissions. The author was not identified in any of the letters sent by the author’s family to the United Kingdom authorities complaining about death threats and identifying the family members who had been threatened, nor was she mentioned in any of the United Kingdom asylum proceedings as having been threatened or at risk in Bangladesh. In fact, in L.’s asylum proceedings, it was explicitly stated that the author had not been threatened. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 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 the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under 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. 9.3 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.12 The Committee notes that the author has filed a pending H&C application, which the State party considers to be an effective remedy. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that a successful H&C application would allow the author to reside permanently in Canada and that two recent communications before the Committee were discontinued because their H&C applications had been granted. However, it is uncontested that removal is not automatically stayed by the filing of an H&C application. Because the author alleges a need for protection from such removal, the Committee considers that the H&C application cannot be considered as offering her an effective remedy under the circumstances. 13 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 9.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is moot and is therefore inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol because, while the author claims that she became eligible for removal without having had access to the PRRA or H&C procedures, she does in fact have access to them. The Committee observes that the author has since exhausted the PRRA remedy without success and recalls that her H&C application does not constitute an effective remedy. The Committee therefore considers that it is not barred by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 9.5 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol owing to insufficient substantiation. However, concerning the author’s claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, the Committee finds that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has provided sufficient 12 13 12 See Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4; and communication No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5. See communication No. 2366/2014, X. v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 8.3; Choudhary v. Canada, para. 8.3; and Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4.