CAT/C/46/D/336/2008 poster with pictures of individuals wanted for terrorist activities, among which were the pictures of two of the complainants and which was distributed in the region where they originated from (Jammu). They also submit that the houses in which they used to live in Jammu had been raided by the police. Further, they submit that the Head of the Indian AntiTerrorist Cell in a television interview on 25 August 2005 called for the Government to press for their extradition to India. 3.5 The complainants submit that, because of their past involvement in the hijackings and their current political activities, they have high profiles as men who want a separate Sikh state. They maintain that the Indian authorities consider them a threat and are actively searching for them and that in case of their forced return to India they would be immediately arrested, subjected to torture or even killed. The complainants refer to a 28 April 2003 letter of the Human Rights Watch, which describes how the new anti-terror legislation could be used against them. They also refer to a 7 May 2003 letter of Amnesty International expressing concerns regarding their safety if returned to India. State party's observations 4.1 On 21 April 2008, the State party submitted that it does not object to the admissibility of the complaint. 4.2 On 20 August 2008, the State party reiterates the facts related to the complainants’ membership in the All India Sikh Student Federation and Dal Khalsa, their participation in the hijackings of airplanes, the criminal trials and sentences against them. The State party also confirms the dates of the complainants’ asylum applications and of the subsequent unsuccessful appeals and requests for review of the asylum applications. 4.3 In relation to the existence in India of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, the State party submits that, according to a decision of the Swiss Federal Council, dated 18 March 1991, India is considered as a country of origin without persecution. It notes that this creates a presumption which can be refuted in the course of an asylum application or of a demand to stay deportation. 4.4 The State party notes that the complainants do not allege that they had been tortured or maltreated in India, but rather use as evidence treatment to which other individuals had been subjected in similar situations. The State party refers to the example, presented by the complainants, of two members of their group, who had been arrested upon return by the security forces and killed. It maintains that these facts had been examined by the Swiss asylum authorities, which established that neither the moment, nor the precise circumstances of the deaths of these persons had been identified clearly and that the above events took place 18 years ago. It also maintains that the current situation of Sikhs in India and in particular of other participants in the hijackings of airplanes demonstrated that there is no risk of torture for the complainants if they are to return to India. In relation to the case of Mr. K.S., the State party maintains that the submitted report does not provide information on the motivation of his killing or on the perpetrators and therefore the responsibility for it, which the complainants attribute to the Indian authorities is only their supposition. In addition, the above events took place twelve years ago and can not be used to assess the possible risk existing at present. 4.5 The State party submits that, as of 1993, the situation in Punjab has become more stable and that a government had been elected following free elections. It notes that the Terrorist and Other Disruptive Activities Act was abolished eight years after its underground and escaped to Pakistan. They also submit a copy of an article mentioning the participation of one of the complainants in a demonstration in front of the United Nations office. 5