CAT/C/59/D/582/2014 security agencies were searching for him, alleging that he was a supporter of Sikh terrorists in Punjab, and the fact that his parents had been arrested on 16 December 2013, threatened and tortured. The complainant could have presented any new evidence of personal risk to the domestic decision makers. Therefore, domestic remedies had not been exhausted. 4.3 The State party explains that the Immigration and Refugee Board rejected the complainant’s claim for protection on the basis that his allegations were non-credible and that he had an internal flight alternative. The complainant provided contradictory and vague explanations when asked about the documents on the basis of which he intended to file a complaint against the police for their brutal behaviour in 2011, leading the panel to conclude that the complainant had not, in fact, consulted a lawyer and that the police were not looking for him in connection with any such consultation. The panel also found contradictions in the complainant’s explanations of the means by which he obtained a visa for Canada, and considered that he was unable to explain his intentions in coming to Canada and his reasons for claiming refugee protection in October 2011. The complainant testified that his family had frequently relocated since January 2012 because of police harassment. However, although he said he spoke to them regularly, he did not know where they were currently located. The Board found it notable that the complainant had been released by local police on two occasions after paying a bribe, that there were no outstanding criminal charges against him and that he had never engaged in political or partisan activities that could link him to a militant or terrorist group. His profile was, therefore, not that of a person who would be sought nationally. Had the complainant in fact been associated with the Ranjit Singh Neeta group, whether on his own account or through his cousin, he would not have been released from detention, because terrorist groups are a priority of the Government of India. In the light of the strict border controls in place in India and the fact that the author left the country using his own passport, the Board did not believe that the author’s name was in the database of suspected criminals that is checked prior to the departure of any traveller. The Board concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the author was not wanted by the central authorities in India. 4.4 The State party claims that the communication is manifestly unfounded. First, the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim that he was detained and tortured in December 2008 and March 2011. To support his claim, he relies on an affidavit dated 7 November 2012 from the head of his village, which states that he and another person, Manpreet Singh, were arrested and tortured on different occasions. No specific dates or details are given, and the contents are generally vague. The complainant also submitted letters from doctors at two different hospitals, dated 25 October 2012 and 2 November 2012. Both contained identical text and described the complainant’s injuries but not their apparent cause. The fact that the text was duplicated called into question their veracity and, in any case, they were drafted more than a year and a half after the complainant was allegedly treated, and there was no claim that they were based on any medical records. Additionally, the complainant submitted two almost identical letters from lawyers in India, indicating that he and his father had visited them on 19 April 2011 to discuss filing a claim against the police. According to the State party, these letters should not be given any probative value, as they are almost identical, did not provide any dates for the events described and did not claim to be based on any personal knowledge of the complainant’s alleged detention or torture. 4.5 Even if the complainant’s allegations that he was tortured in the past were accepted as proven, he has not provided any evidence to substantiate a personal risk of torture in the future. He left Punjab three years ago. He has not claimed to be a high-profile Sikh militant or to have any association with, or knowledge of, Sikh militants. At no time has he claimed that the police believed that he, personally, had engaged in militant activities. It is therefore highly unlikely that any risk that might once have existed for him in Punjab would still exist upon his return. No warrant or record of any court appearance by the complainant in 4