CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 Recent human rights and religious freedom reports on Pakistan do not refer to any incidents of torture or other mistreatment of Sunni Muslims who convert to Shi’ism. 3 Lastly, the complainant has not provided independent evidence to support his allegations concerning the alleged threat of future harm from his former in-laws. There is no reason to believe that his ex-in-laws would seek to harm him today, more than 20 years after his departure from Pakistan. Moreover, the documentation provided by the complainant does not establish a risk of such harm. The divorce papers state that the marriage was dissolved because of the complainant’s cruelty and because he abandoned his ex-wife to go to the United States; they do not establish that the complainant’s in-laws are responsible for the divorce, or that they bear ill-will towards him. The police reports do not establish a link between the deaths of the complainant’s relatives and the alleged harm he fears, nor do they suggest that the perpetrators were motivated in any way by a desire to retaliate against him. The personal letters provided were written by individuals who have an interest in seeing the complainant remain in Canada and who reside in Canada and therefore lack first-hand knowledge of the allegations made. The letters feature hearsay and broad allegations in relation to the complainant’s claims. Moreover, the newspaper clippings provided by the complainant indicate that honour killings are mostly related to sexual infidelity, and there are no reports of honour killings due to religious conversion. The clippings reporting sectarian violence against Shias in Pakistan do not establish that the complainant would be personally at risk of torture upon removal. 4.4 The State party also considers that the communication is inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (c) of the Committee’s rules of procedure and article 22 of the Convention, because the harm the complainant fears at the hands of his former family members does not constitute torture within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. He fears being the victim of an honour killing at the hands of non-governmental actors. The Committee has consistently held that fears of harms inflicted by non-governmental actors without the consent or acquiescence of the State fall outside the scope of torture as defined by article 1 of the Convention.4 4.5 The State party further considers that the Committee is not competent to reevaluate findings of credibility or fact made by competent domestic authorities. The allegations set forth by the complainant are substantially the same as those made in the PRRA and before the Federal Court of Canada. The national proceedings disclose no manifest error or unreasonableness and were not marred by serious irregularities. 4.6 Finally, the State party considers that the communication is wholly without merit, for the reasons set forth above. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 30 May 2013, 7 August 2013, 16 August 2013, 4 September 2013, 7 November 2013, 10 July 2014, 27 November 2014 and 10 June 2015, the complainant provided additional comments and documentation. He asserts that he abandoned his refugee claim owing to the State party’s failure to communicate with him, not because of any error on his part. The complainant had a lawyer when he filed his refugee claim, but the lawyer stopped pursuing the case when he did not get paid (the complainant’s application for legal aid was 3 4 6 The State party cites United States Department of State, 2011 International Religious Freedom Report: Pakistan and Amnesty International Report 2012. The State party cites, inter alia, communications Nos. 130/1999 and 131/1999, V.X.N. and H.N. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 2000, para. 13.8; No. 218/2002, L.J.R.C. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 22 November 2004, para. 5.2; and No. 49/1996, S.V. v. Canada, Views adopted on 15 May 2001, para. 9.5.