State party's observations on admissibility 4.1 In a submission dated 9 November 1998, the State party submitted that the communication was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies as required by article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention and rule 91 of the Committee's rules of procedure. 4.2 The State party underlines that it is a fundamental principle of international law that domestic remedies must be exhaust before remedy from an international body may be sought. This principle gives the State an opportunity to correct internally any wrong that may have been committed before the State's international responsibility is engaged. 4.3 The State party argues that the author has failed to seek ministerial exemption on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under subsection 114 (2) of the Canadian Immigration Act and section 2.1 of its Immigration Regulations. This remedy would have enabled the author to apply to the Minister on Immigration and Citizenship at any time for an exemption from the requirements of the immigration legislation or for admission to Canada on compassionate or humanitarian grounds. In this regard, the State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee in its decision K. v. Canada (communication No. 42/1996, 25 November 1997), where the author had been deemed not to have exhausted domestic remedies since he had not lodged a request for a ministerial waiver for humanitarian and compassionate grounds. 4.4 The State party also refers to the author's claim that the judicial review by the Federal Court of Canada has no suspensive effect and therefore entitles the State party to deport the applicant while the Federal Court is deciding whether such removal is legal. It emphasizes that in these cases there is a possibility to make an application to the Federal Court for an interim order staying removal while the decision is pending before the Court. The criteria that are applied by the Federal Court in granting such interim orders are: (a) the seriousness of the issue raised by the author; (b) the irreparable harm suffered by the author in case of removal; and (c) when the balance of convenience favours the order. Counsel's comments 5.1 The author maintains that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies before submitting his communication. He alleges that it is illusory to believe that the ministerial review for humanitarian reasons, based solely on the risk of return, would be treated differently that the post-determination review.