PART 2: Procedures of the Human Rights Commitee and the Committee against Torture If a person makes a genuine and reasonable yet unsuccessful attempt to comply with local procedural requirements and exhaust domestic remedies, such attempts may satisfy the domestic remedies rule. For example, in J.R.T. and the W.G. Party v. Canada the complainant failed to file his application for judicial review within the legal time limit because the time limits in question were conflicting and ambiguous. As the complainant had made a reasonable effort to exhaust domestic remedies, the HRC held that he had complied with the requirements of Article 5(2) (b) of the OP.143 iv. Ineffective or Unavailable Remedies A person need not pursue remedies which are ineffective or unavailable. This exception to the rule of the exhaustion of domestic remedies is explicitly found in Article 22(5)(b) of the CAT. The exception has also been recognized with regard to the ICCPR by the HRC in its case law. Remedies must appear to be effective vis-à-vis the allegations raised by the alleged victim and must be de facto available to him or her. Whereas the initial burden is with the complainant to prove that he or she has exhausted or genuinely attempted to exhaust all appropriate domestic remedies, he or she must substantiate as well any claim that certain remedies are ineffective or unavailable. Afterwards, the burden may shift to the State party to provide evidence that domestic remedies are yet available and effective. It is not deemed sufficient if the State party merely enumerates “in abstract terms the existence of remedies”; State parties need to show that in the circumstances of the case the remedy at stake was capable of providing effective redress to the author:144 The State party must describe in detail which legal remedies would have been available to an author in the specific case and provide evidence that there would be a reasonable prospect that such remedies would be effective. A general description of rights and remedies available is insufficient. The Committee notes that the State party failed to explain how civil proceedings could have provided redress in the present case.145 Subsequently, if the author was unable to file a complaint with the relevant domestic authorities due to the State party’s actions or omissions, or if the remedy was not suitable to address the claims of the author delving into the merits of the case, the respective Committee will declare the failure of the State party to show that the remedies were effective and available to the author. In Akwanga v. Cameroon, 142 HRC, Griffin v. Spain, Comm. No. 493/1992. 143 HRC, J.R.T. and the W.G. Party v. Canada, Comm. No. 104/1981. See also, HRC, Mpandanjila et al. v. Zaire, Comm. No. 138/83. 144 See, inter alia, HRC, Akwanga v. Cameroon, Comm. No. 1813/2008, para. 6.4. 145 HRC, Butavenko v. Ukraine, Comm. No. 1412/2005, para. 6.4. See also HRC: Sequeira v. Uruguay, Comm. No. 6/1977, paras. 6(c) and 9(b); P.L. v. Germany, Comm. No. 1003/2001, para. 6.5. 65