CAT/C/65/D/784/2016 random variables – along the lines of a Poisson distribution 4 – than it does with the probability of an effective remedy that is accompanied by a reasonable probability of relief. 9. The State party further submits that the complainant could apply for leave to seek judicial review of a negative decision before the Federal Court of Canada5, which is not an appeal of the decision but rather a request to have the decision and the decision-making process reviewed.6 Such applications were filed in only 8 per cent of cases in the period 2009–2011 and in 11 per cent of cases in the period 2012–2014. Only 4 per cent of judicial review decisions were favourable during the period 2009–2014.7 10. A high proportion (26 per cent) of persons potentially eligible for a pre-removal risk assessment had been removed before the one-year bar expired,8 alongside a tendency noted during this period 9 to facilitate removals in order to reduce the number of applications, thereby eliminating any potential suspensive effect. 11. Suspensive effect, as well as reasonable time frames, must be understood as applying to the entire procedure in the State party, in order to avoid lapses in protection. They must apply to the period during which there is a bar on applications for pre-removal risk assessment, as well as to the additional notification periods. 12. In spite of all the Committee’s questions and criticisms on the subject of the preremoval risk assessment, the State party maintained its position, namely, not to change the procedure in order to bring it into conformity with the provisions of the Convention and the Committee’s jurisprudence.10 13. This being the case, the pre-removal risk assessment does not constitute an effective remedy for the purposes of admissibility, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, for the following reasons: it was not made available, in practice, to the complainant; it is discretionary and non-judicial in nature; 11 it does not have suspensive effect in respect of expulsion; 12 its procedures, including the waiting period prior to eligibility, exceed “a reasonable time frame”; and it is highly unlikely that the complainant would obtain effective relief by this means. 13 In short, it is not consistent with the criteria defined in general comment No. 414 for an effective remedy. 14. Consequently, and in these specific circumstances, the complainant has exhausted all effective domestic remedies for the purposes of admissibility, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 10 Siméon-Denis Poisson, Recherches sur la probabilité des jugements en matière criminelle et en matière civile : Précédées des règles générales du calcul des probabilités,1837, passage 81, p. 205. Ibid., art. 72. See Evaluation of the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Program, footnote 38. Ibid., Table 4.2. Ibid., para. 4.2.4. Ibid., para. 4.2.4. See CAT/C/SR.1698, para. 33. See Falcon Ríos v. Canada (CAT/C/33/D/133/1999), para. 7.3. See J.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/62/D/695/2015), para. 6.3; and W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2012), para. 7.4. See E.Y. v. Canada (CAT/C/43/D/307/2006/Rev.1), para. 9.2. See general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 34. GE.19-05767