CAT/C/46/D/336/2008 detention, it was alleged that the authorities had attempted to block the investigation,13 to destroy evidence,14 or had taken no steps to investigate the allegations.15 11.4 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainants do not allege that they had been tortured or maltreated in India, and that he current situation of Sikhs in India and in particular of other participants in airplanes’ hijackings demonstrated that there is no risk of torture for the complainants if they are to return. The Committee, however, recalls that whether the complainant has been subjected to torture in the past, is but one of the factors that it finds pertinent in assessing the merits of a case.16 It observes that the complainants have submitted information regarding cases, similar to theirs, where individuals who had participated in hijackings had been arrested, detained in inhuman conditions, tortured and/or killed. The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3, in which it states that the risk of torture “must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable”.17 11.5 The Committee notes that the State party questions whether the criminal justice authorities in India are still looking for the complainants and argues that, even if they were, that in itself would not be sufficient to conclude that they would be subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention. The Committee, however, observes that the complainants are clearly known to the authorities as Sikh militants and that they have submitted to the Swiss authorities and to the Committee several statements from public officials in India indicating them by name, which demonstrate that the criminal justice authorities were looking for them as late as in 2005. The Committee also notes that the complainants are well known to the Indian authorities because of their political activities in Switzerland and their leadership roles in the Sikh community abroad. The Committee accordingly considers that the complainants have provided sufficient evidence that their profile is sufficiently high to put them at risk of torture if arrested. 11.6 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that that numerous Sikh militants are back in India, that Sikhs live in great numbers in different states and therefore the complainants have the option to relocate to another Indian state from their state of origin. The Committee, however, observes that some Sikhs, alleged to have been involved in terrorist activities have been arrested by the authorities upon arrival at the airport and immediately taken to prisons and charged with various offences.18 The Committee also takes note of the evidence submitted that the Indian police continued to look for the complainants and to question their families about their whereabouts long after they had fled to Switzerland. In light of these considerations, the Committee does not consider that they would be able to lead a life free of torture in other parts of India. 11.7 Moreover, the Committee considers that, in view of the fact that India is not a party to the Convention, the complainants would be in danger, in the event of expulsion to India, 13 E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, para. 726 and E/CN.4/2005/7/Add.1, para. 300. E/CN.4/2005/62/Add.1, para. 727. 15 Ibid., paras. 724, 725, 729 and 730. See also E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.1, para. 85 and A/HRC/4/33/Add.1, para. 77. 16 See, General Comment No 1: Implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (Refoulement and communications), A/53/44, annex IX, paragraph 8. 17 Ibid, paragraph 6. 18 See also Communication No. 297/2006, Bachan Singh Sogi v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2007. 14 10