CAT/C/46/D/336/2008 6. On 17 February 2009, the State party submits that the allegations made by the complainants do not lead to the conclusion that they would be exposed to a real, personal and serious risk of torture in case they were deported to India. Even if the Indian authorities were interested in apprehending the complainants that would not necessarily mean that they would be tortured. The State party refers to the complainants’ argument that several Sikhs, who had returned to India from Europe between 2006 and 2008, had been questioned by the police about them. It submits that, according to the written statement from one of these individuals that was provided by the complainants themselves, he did not allege having been tortured. Complainants’ additional comments 7. On 17 February 2010, the complainants submit additional documents on the case of a certain Mr. P.S. in support of their claims.8 They maintain that, similarly to them, Mr. P.S. participated in the 1984 hijackings, served a 10 year sentence in Pakistan, led a peaceful life in Canada for 15 years, but was immediately arrested following his deportation to India on 26 January 2010 and placed in a high security jail, where he was detained in appalling conditions. He is said to be facing charges under the National Security Act. On 7 April 2010, the complainants submitted a copy of the Grounds of Detention against Mr. P.S. under the 1980 National Security Act, by the Commissioner of the Delhi Police, which states that the former “is, obviously, a person of danger to Indian citizens”, that “he is enemical to the nation which was demonstrably proved by the fact that he took the hijacked plane to Lahore”, that he is “a desperate and hardened criminal whose activities are prejudicial to the Security of the State as well as maintenance of public order�� and that “there is every possibility that […] he will indulge again in similar types of criminal activities.” The report mentions the names of two of the complainants as accomplices (Dalip Singh Khalsa and Harminder Singh Khalsa). The complainants submit that it is obvious that the Indian police would accuse them of working against the government. State party's additional observations 8. On 19 October 2010, the State party submits that the new documents submitted by the complainants do not lead to the conclusion that they would be exposed to a real, personal and serious risk of torture in case they are deported to India. It maintains that the complainants do not indicate whether the detention described in it was confirmed by the competent authorities. The State party further refers to the Committee’s decision in case 99/1997, T.P.S. v. Canada, where it did not find a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainants’ additional comments 9. On 7 December 2010, one of the complainants, Dalip Singh Khalsa, submitted that on 25 November 2010, he was granted a regular stay permit. Accordingly the complainant has withdrawn his complaint. According to information from the State party’s authorities, submitted on 18 February 2011, he had been granted a humanitarian permit, based on the fact that he has well integrated into the Swiss society. On 23 March 2011, the complainants submit that Mr. P.S. is still kept in custody and his plea to release him was dismissed by the court on 9 February 2011 on the ground that he was a threat to public security. 8 The complainants submit: articles from The Star, dated 3 February 2010, and from SikhSiyasat.net, dated 2 February 2010, describing the immediate arrest and incarceration without trial of Mr. P.S., a Sikh, who participate in the 1984 hijacking after his deportation to India; a letter describing the harsh conditions in which the arrested individual was held in the Tihar jail, dated 5 February 2010, signed by a lawyer, Mr. N.S., who visited him in that jail; a report on Mr. P.S.’s arrest and conditions of detention by the SikhSiyasat.net, dated 29 January 2010. 8