CAT/C/55/D/512/2012 2.4 The complainant maintains that while he was in the United States, he kept in touch with his wife through the Internet and through phone calls, but that when he moved to Canada in 2003, his wife suddenly fell out of touch. His relatives informed him that his wife’s uncle had persuaded her to file for divorce and convert back to the Sunni faith. The divorce was pronounced in December 2003, but the complainant only found out about it in May 2004. The complainant asserts that the divorce ignited tensions among his relatives; that his ex-wife’s relatives stated that he had ruined her life and that they would avenge this; that one of his nephews was murdered; that the complainant’s cousin, her son and her niece were also subsequently murdered; and that the complainant’s ex-wife’s relatives admitted to committing those murders and threatened that they would kill him if he returned to Pakistan. 2.5 The complainant claims that he arrived in Canada on 3 March 2003 and filed his refugee claim on the same date. He was informed that he would be given a hearing, but he never received any notice of the time and place of the hearing. He was later informed that he had not appeared at the hearing and that his refugee claim had been rejected on that basis. The complainant then filed an application for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA), which was rejected on 18 October 2011 on the ground that he had not established a risk of being killed, persecuted, tortured or subjected to cruel, inhuman or unusual treatment or punishment should he be returned to Pakistan. After the PRRA application was rejected, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for judicial review; that application was rejected on 13 July 2012. The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that the State party would violate article 3 of the Convention by removing him to Pakistan, where he faces persecution by three different groups. He asserts that he is at risk of being harmed by the ruling political parties in Pakistan (namely, the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad, which is a coalition consisting of the Muslim League, Jamaat-e-Islami and a few other parties); by unnamed religious parties that have been killing thousands of Shia Muslims over the past two decades in Pakistan; and by his former in-laws, who, led by his ex-wife’s uncle S.A., have vowed to obtain revenge because the complainant made his ex-wife convert to the Shia faith. The complainant asserts that he would “definitely be tortured and killed” if he were to return to Pakistan. 3.2 The complainant recalls that in 1991, he was illegally arrested, detained and tortured by members of the Islami Jamhoori Ittehad, which has become influential in Pakistan. He argues that one of the perpetrators, I.K., has been involved extensively in kidnappings, drug trafficking, rape, killings and torture and personally knows S.A., which renders the complainant more vulnerable. The complainant submits that the police has never taken any action against I.K. 3.3 The complainant argues that he most fears persecution by unspecified religious parties, some of which have become increasingly involved in bombings and killings of Shia Muslims. He maintains that if he returns to Pakistan, he will be targeted by those religious parties and the police will not do anything to protect him, especially since S.A. wields influence throughout the country. 3.4 As for the fears of persecution from his former in-laws, the complainant argues that the previous four killings that occurred within his family were premeditated, and that the killers were not convicted because they left very little evidence. He maintains that the perpetrators are therefore free, and that the police is not actively investigating the crimes because the victims’ families are not wealthy enough to offer bribes and are not wellconnected with high-ranking officials or politicians. The complainant argues that if he returns to Pakistan, he will be discovered and targeted by his former in-laws. 4