CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 of torture or other mistreatment of Sunni Muslims solely on the basis that they have converted to Shi’ism.17 6.10 The State party notes that the complainant has submitted what appears to be a notarized letter from Muhammad Asghar, the president of PPP Lahore, dated 20 November 2014, in support of his claim that he will be targeted by the PML-N or extremist groups if returned to Pakistan. The letter describes the nature of the complainant’s participation in the PPP in the 1988 election campaigns, in which the PPP formed the government in Pakistan, and the events leading to the complainant’s departure from Pakistan in 1992. The letter further describes retaliation by the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad and the PML-N against members of the PPP throughout the 1990s, and the “strong ties” between the LeJ and Sipah-e-Sahaba and the PML-N. According to Mr. Asghar, the complainant continues to be sought by the PML-N because of his role in its defeat in the 1990 elections and because of his ex-wife’s uncle’s connections with those groups. Without seeking to prejudge this evidence, the State party observes that this letter provides only the most general overview of the political tensions between the PPP and PML-N since 1988 without pointing to any objective sources upon which these statements are based. The letter further lacks any information regarding the nature of Mr. Asghar’s involvement in the PPP other than his title as President of the Lahore branch; no information is provided about the length of time he has occupied this position. The State party also notes that the letter contains only vague references to the political “enemies” of the complainant who will seek him out if returned to Pakistan. There is no indication in the letter that Mr. Asghar has any personal knowledge of the events described, including those related to the complainant’s treatment in Pakistan, or the statements regarding the intention of the PML-N, the police or the uncle of the complainant’s former wife to seek him out upon his return. For all of these reasons, the State party submits that the Committee should decline to give that document significant weight in assessing the complainant’s claims. 6.11 Finally, the State party considers that the Committee has consistently expressed the view that the fear of harm inflicted by non-governmental actors without the consent or acquiescence of the State clearly falls outside the scope of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention.18 The complainant’s allegations regarding fear of harm by his former inlaws and by extremist groups, which would include the LeJ, are based on the actions of non-governmental actors and are therefore incompatible with the definition of torture set out in article 1. While the complainant claims that the LeJ operates as an extension of the governing PML-N party in Pakistan, the complainant has not produced any objective evidence that the Government of Pakistan consents or acquiesces to sectarian violence perpetrated by the LeJ against persons of the Shia faith. As noted above, both Sipah-eSahaba and the LeJ are banned by the Government of Pakistan. Moreover, although there is not a clear consensus in the country reports, the State party considers that some recent reports suggest that the Government of Pakistan is making efforts to prevent religiously motivated attacks from occurring. According to the United States Department of State’s 2013 International Religious Freedom Report on Pakistan, Pakistani authorities arrested several extremist leaders responsible for attacks on Shia communities, including LeJ leaders.19 In late 2013, the President, Mamnoon Hussain, and the Prime Minister, Muhammad Nawaz Sharif, issued public statements condemning a major attack on Shias in Punjab Province. The Chief Minister of Punjab Province has also created at least one 17 18 19 The State party cites United States Department of State, 2013 International Religious Freedom Report: Pakistan; Human Rights Watch, World Report 2015: Pakistan; and Amnesty International, Report 2014/15: The State of the World’s Human Rights, p. 281 ff. The State party cites, inter alia, V.X.N. and H.N. v. Sweden, para. 13.8, and L.J.R.C. v. Sweden. The State party cites pp. 14-16 of the report. 15