CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 Appendix Individual opinion of Committee member Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (dissenting) 1. The State party asserts most forcefully in paragraph 4.2, as set out in the Views of the majority, that the author has not exhausted local remedies and that he still has the opportunity of obtaining an effective remedy under humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The State party enlarges the scope of remedies regarding applications for refugee status by calling the humanitarian and compassionate application “an effective remedy that offers a reasonable prospect of redress … in cases where an applicant would suffer an unusual and undeserved hardship”. 2. The State party goes as far as to regret that the Human Rights Committee has in the past adopted Views that humanitarian and compassionate applications “are not remedies that should be exhausted for admissibility purposes”. The stand taken by the majority of the Committee at para. 6.3 in its Views is that the humanitarian and compassionate application “does not shield the author from deportation to Sri Lanka and therefore cannot be described as offering him an effective remedy”. 3. In this particular case, where the majority finds a non-violation, the stand taken by the majority weakens the chances of the author in a prospective humanitarian and compassionate application. It is true that the author himself, because of the previous Views of the Committee, claims that he has exhausted local remedies so as to render his communication admissible under the Optional Protocol. However, in the general context of Canadian law and the rules of procedure in relation to applications for permanent residence and in the particular circumstances of the present case, where the State party is taking a very open, generous and liberal stand, the author’s Communication should have been considered inadmissible, thereby enabling the author to make a humanitarian and compassionate application. 4. Our Committee is a Human Rights Committee and not a Court of Appeal or a quasijudicial body. It need not in all circumstances always be bound by previous Views. It has the discretion and the flexibility to vary its findings, basing itself on the specific circumstances of each case and a constantly changing situation, especially as regards applications for refugee status, while reinforcing the rights to protection enshrined in the Covenant and adhering strictly to the principles applicable under the Optional Protocol as to exhaustion of local remedies. At paragraph 4.2, the State party takes the stand that it would not object to an application by the author for a judicial stay of removal pending the outcome of the assessment of a humanitarian and compassionate application, if any. The State party even mentions the grounds the author may rely upon, that is, a demonstration of his family ties in Canada and the hardship he may suffer in Sri Lanka. 5. I am of the view that the State party, having demonstrated clearly its willingness to do so, should allow the author to make a humanitarian and compassionate application if he wishes to proceed with such an application. 16