CAT/C/61/D/687/2015 noting that the site warns against non-essential travel due to serious threats. 16 The State party considers that the complainant clearly misapprehends the purpose of that website, which is to provide Canadians travelling and living abroad with general information on security issues so that they can make informed decisions about their travel to a foreign country. That kind of general information cannot be considered as sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that the complainant would face a real and personal risk of torture should he return to his country of origin. 6.9 With respect to the current human rights situation in Pakistan, the State party relies on its initial submission and adds that, based on recent country reports, it would seem that the human rights situation in Pakistan is very similar to when the State party provided the Committee with its initial submission in January 2016, although, according to both the Home Office, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the European Asylum Support Office, the situation did improve in 2015 compared to other years.17 Even if the human rights and security situation in Pakistan remains challenging, the Government continues to make best efforts to rectify the situation. 6.10 The State party refers to the complainant’s supplemental submission according to which, when the persecutors of a torture victim are agents of the State or where a torture victim has witnessed the forced disappearance of immediate family members, the victim is at risk throughout Pakistan and an internal alternative flight would not be available. The State party considers that neither of these factors applies to the complainant. As regards his allegation that the risk to his life from Sunni terrorists is everywhere in Pakistan, the State party considers that the complainant has not provided any evidence to substantiate that allegation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a complaint, 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. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention as the complainant has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the complainant failed to apply to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment decision and of the decision by the Canada Border Services Agency on his request for an administrative deferral of his removal. 7.3 In this context, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which such a judicial review is mainly based on procedural issues and does not involve a review of the merits of the case.18 The Committee notes that the complainant has submitted applications to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and the Federal Court, as well as an application under the pre-removal risk assessment procedure, and considers that it would be unreasonable to require that the complainant also apply for judicial review of the preremoval risk assessment decision and of the decision by the Canada Border Services Agency on his request for an administrative deferral of his removal. 16 17 18 10 Government of Canada, “Travel advice and advisories”, available from https://travel.gc.ca/travelling/advisories. Home Office, United Kingdom, “Country information and guidance: Pakistan: security and humanitarian situation” (November 2015), sect. 5.3, p. 11, “Trends in 2015”, available from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566239/PAK_Security _and_humanitarian_situation.pdf; and European Asylum Support Office, EASO Country of Origin Information Report: Pakistan Security Situation (July 2016), sect. 1.3, p. 23, available from https://coi.easo.europa.eu/administration/easo/PLib/BZ0416539ENN.pdf. See communication No. 582/2014, N.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 1 December 2016, para. 8.2.