CAT/C/63/D/767/2016 substantive and that, in practice, cases are sent back for reconsideration on this basis. 12 The Committee further notes the complainant’s assertion that he did not apply for judicial review of the impugned decisions as, in any case, such remedies are expensive, ineffective and unlikely to bring effective relief, and therefore the communication should be found to be admissible in accordance with article 22 (5) (b). 6.6 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that judicial review in the State party is not a mere formality and that the Federal Court may, in appropriate cases, look at the substance of a case.13 Mere doubt about the effectiveness of a remedy does not, in the Committee’s view, dispense with the obligation to exhaust it. In the circumstances, the Committee concludes that the complainant has failed to advance sufficient elements to show that judicial review of the negative decisions of both the pre-removal risk assessment and the administrative deferral of removal would have been ineffective in this case and has not justified his failure to avail himself of these remedies. 6.7 Accordingly, the Committee is satisfied with the argument of the State party that, in this particular case, there were remedies, both available and effective, which the complainant has not exhausted.14 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 incompatible with the Convention or manifestly unfounded. 6.8 The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 12 13 14 According to section 18.1 (4) of the Federal Courts Act, a judicial review of a pre-removal risk assessment decision by the Federal Court is not limited to errors of law and mere procedural flaws and the Court may look at the substance of a case. See, e.g., communication Aung v. Canada, para. 6.3.; S.S. and P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/702/2015), para. 6.5. See, e.g. J.S. v. Canada, para. 6.6; and S.S. and P.S. v. Canada, para. 6.6. 7