CAT/C/43/D/307/2006 not shown that he would be at risk in all parts of the country. The mere fact that he might not be able to return to his hometown does not as such amount to torture.8 Lastly, it was unclear whether the complainant feared torture from State or non-State agents or both. Complainant’s comments 6.1 On 30 May 2007, counsel informed the Committee that the complainant had not been in contact with him since 31 October 2006. On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, he submits that he cannot comment on the domestic proceedings relating to the complainant’s refugee claim, humanitarian and compassionate application, spousal sponsorship and PRRA application, as he only represented him in the proceedings concerning the deferral and stay of his removal. After the Federal Court had refused to entertain the complainant’s motion, and no order staying removal had been granted, “there was no rationale for continuing the application in the Federal Court […],” and no other remedy was available to him. No further explanations on exhaustion of domestic remedies and their availability or effectiveness are offered. 6.2 Counsel submits that it was common knowledge that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have fled Iraq, “and that the breakdown of civilized life in Iraq is accompanied by horrific violence from not just foreign soldiers, Iraqi police and outside armed men, but from Iraqi privately armed groups and individuals.” Moreover, the situation in Iraq had deteriorated since the complainant’s PRRA in 2004. 6.3 Counsel rejects the State party’s argument that “instability in Iraq affects all Iraqis and all persons present in Iraq, and is not personal to the [complainant]” and that “the pervasive violence and instability in Iraq are not, in and of themselves, sufficient to substantiate the [complainant’s] allegation that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture upon being returned to Iraq”. If everyone present in Iraq was affected by such pervasive violence and instability, no person should be returned to that country. Moreover, if violence was pervasive, “it is being experienced in every part of the country.” 6.4 Given the complainant’s past employment in the armed forces of Saddam Hussein, his risk was arguably higher than that of someone unrelated to the former regime. In light of the serious human rights situation in Iraq, any person previously associated with Saddam Hussein would be at substantial risk if returned to Iraq, including the complainant. State party’s additional observations 7.1 On 24 September 2007, the State party reiterated that the complaint is inadmissible because of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and because it is manifestly unfounded, and in any event without merit. The fact that the complainant’s previous counsel failed to advise him to apply for leave to apply for judicial review with respect to the humanitarian and compassionate decision of 28 June 1999 and the PRRA decision of 21 January 2005 did not absolve him from the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, as errors committed by his privately retained lawyer cannot be attributed to the State party. 7.2 By reference to a decision of the Human Rights Committee9 that failure to pursue a leave application with due diligence rendered a communication inadmissible, the State party challenges counsel’s argument that “there was no rationale for continuing the 8 9 GE.09-46716 The State party refers to Communication No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, at para. 11.5; Communication No. 245/2006, S.S.S. v. Canada, at para. 8.5. Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 982/2001, J.S.B. v. Canada, at para. 7.3. 7