CAT/C/46/D/336/2008 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Admissibility considerations 10.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a) and (b), that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that all available domestic remedied have been exhausted. 10.2 The Committee takes note that the State party does not contest the admissibility of the communication and decides that it is admissible in respect of the alleged violation of article 3 of the Convention based on the return of the complainants to India. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee takes note of the fact that, on 25 November 2010, Dalip Singh Khalsa, received a regular residence permit from the State party. Therefore, the Committee decides to discontinue the part of the communication relating to Dalip Singh Khalsa. 11.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the three remaining complainants to India would violate the State party's obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In order to determine whether, at the time of removal, there were substantial reasons for believing that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture if they were returned to India, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the determination, however, is to establish whether the individuals concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which they were returned. 11.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that, as of 1993, the situation in Punjab has become more stable, a government had been elected following free elections, which announced that it shall take measures against police officers; the Terrorist and Other Disruptive Activities Act has been abolished; and the Central Bureau of Investigation has started more than 1000 procedures against police officers accused of inappropriate conduct. The Committee, however, observes that according to the available information, such as recent reports of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, ill-treatment9 and torture10 of individuals held in detention, as well as deaths in custody11 or following detention12 continue to be a problem in India. Special Rapporteurs also expressed their concerns relating to reports of alleged impunity for criminal acts committed by officials. In some cases relating to reports of death or ill-treatment while in 9 A/HRC/4/33/Add.1, paras. 78 and 80-82; E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.1, para. 87; E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, paras. 729, 730, 732, 734, 735, 744, 745, 761. 10 E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, paras. 758, 759, 760. 11 A/HRC/4/33/Add.1, paras. 76 and 83; E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, paras. 727, 733, 736, 762; E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, para. 298. 12 E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.1, para. 84 and E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, paras. 724, 725, 726, 737, 756. 9