CAT/C/59/D/582/2014
he or she would not be exposed to torture, as he or she might be in other areas of the same
State, is not an admissible option unless the Committee has received reliable information
before the deportation that the State of return has taken effective measures able to guarantee
full and sustainable protection of the rights of the person concerned. In the present case, no
such information has been received by the Committee.
9.7
The Committee notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant
was subjected to torture by local police in the past, it does not necessarily follow that,
several years after the alleged events occurred, he would still currently be at risk of being
subjected to torture if returned to India, in particular in the light of the lack of evidence that
he is being sought by the national authorities in India. Additionally, the Committee
considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to support his allegation
that his family has been subjected to harassment after he left the country or that he would
otherwise be wanted by local police. The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of general
comment No. 1, according to which the burden of presenting an arguable case lies with the
author of a communication. In the Committee’s opinion, the complainant has not
discharged this burden of proof.18 Further, the complainant has failed to demonstrate that
the authorities of the State party, which considered the case, have failed to conduct a proper
investigation.
9.8
In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that the complainant has not
adduced sufficient grounds for believing that he would run a real, foreseeable, personal and
present risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to India.
10.
The Committee, acting under article 22 (7) of the Convention, concludes that the
complainant’s removal to India by the State party would not constitute a violation of
article 3 of the Convention.
18
See communication No. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November
2013, paras. 10.5 and 10.6.
9