CAT/C/59/D/582/2014
of the term defined in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, because he did not
have a well-founded fear of persecution in India on one of the Convention grounds, and that
he was not a person in need of protection because his removal to India would not subject
him personally to a risk to his life or to ill-treatment. The Board considered that the
complainant lacked credibility on certain issues, including his visit to a lawyer in order to
file a complaint against the police, his travel route and the alleged persecution of his family
members back in India. It further considered that the complainant’s profile was not of such
a nature that he would be wanted by the Indian national authorities, given his lack of
political or partisan engagement, the lack of criminal charges or an arrest warrant pending
against him and the fact that he used his own passport to leave India. The Board concluded
that an internal flight alternative existed and that the complainant could be relocated to
Delhi.
2.8
On 28 August 2013, the Federal Court of Canada rejected the complainant’s
application for leave to appeal.
2.9
The complainant claims that, since his departure, his parents have been harassed by
the police on numerous occasions, including on 16 December 2013, when their house was
raided and they were arrested, tortured and interrogated about the complainant’s
whereabouts. They were subsequently released with the assistance of influential persons
and after paying a bribe. The police threatened to kill them if they did not disclose the
complainant’s whereabouts. The police also threatened to kill the complainant if he
returned to India.3
The complaint
3.1
The complainant claims that, by deporting him to India, the State party would
violate articles 1 and 3 of the Convention, because he would be at personal risk of being
subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Since the Indian police
and security agencies were searching for him for allegedly supporting Sikh terrorists in
Punjab, he would be arrested if returned and, potentially, killed. The complainant claims
that he has been in regular contact with his family and friends in his village in India, who
have advised him not to return there because his life would be at risk.
3.2
The complainant notes the general human rights situation in India, including torture
and extrajudicial killings by the police, as confirmed by several reports, 4 which is worse for
minorities such as the Sikh religious minority.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its observations dated 5 June 2014 and 15 July 2014, the State party submits that
domestic remedies had not been exhausted because the complainant had not applied for a
pre-removal risk assessment or for permanent residence on humanitarian and
compassionate grounds at the time of submitting his complaint to the Committee.5
4.2
The State party noted that the complainant had raised before the Committee claims
that were not brought before domestic instances, namely the fact that Punjabi police and
3
4
5
The complainant submits an affidavit, dated 7 November 2012, from the head of his village,
confirming that there is a serious threat to the complainant’s life if he returns to India.
The complainant cites United States of America, Department of State, Country Reports on Human
Rights Practices for 2012, India; Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2013, “India”,
2013.
Amendments to the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which came into effect on
28 June 2012, established a one-year period of ineligibility to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment
for persons whose allegations of risk of serious harm have already been decided upon by the
Immigration and Refugee Board or in a previous pre-removal risk assessment.
3