CAT/C/46/D/336/2008 promulgation. Even after the assassination of the Prime Minister Beant Singh on 31 August 1995, the situation remained calm. As of 1995, the police in Punjab had been under scrutiny and, following an order of the Supreme Court, a Central Bureau of Investigation had started more than 1000 procedures against police officers. The newly elected government in 1997 announced that it would take measures against police officers at fault and that it would compensate the victims. 4.6 Concerning the poster with pictures of wanted terrorists, allegedly issued by the Indian police, the State party submits that the complainants did not deliver the original to the Swiss authorities, but presented a copy, on which it was not possible to identify whether any of the complainants’ photos were present. Additionally the poster was not dated and it seemed improbable that the authorities would be looking for the complainants in that manner twenty years after the airplanes’ hijackings. 4.7 Concerning the copies of the articles submitted by the complainants in support of the allegation that their names and activities were known to the Indian authorities, the State party submits that such copies have no evidentiary value and that the complainants could have easily obtained the originals and submitted them to the Swiss authorities at an earlier stage of the proceedings. 4.8 The State party submits that, even if the Indian criminal justice authorities were still looking for the complainants at present, that in itself would not be sufficient to conclude that they would be subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention. The Indian justice system is based on the British model and can be qualified as independent. Therefore, the complainants could hire attorneys and defend themselves. There is no evidence that they would be at a disadvantage because of their political activities. The State party also submits that seven individuals, who had participated in an airplane hijacking in 1984, had been deported to India, sentenced to life imprisonment, but had been liberated after 12 years and were never persecuted.5 It maintains that numerous Sikh militants are back in India, that the Sikh movement has been “largely normalized” and that today Sikhs are a recognized religious minority, benefitting from effective constitutional protection. In addition, Sikhs live in great numbers in different states and therefore they have the option to relocate to an Indian state other than their state of origin. The State party notes that the current Prime Minister of India is Sikh.6 4.9 Regarding the political activities of the complainants in Switzerland, the State party submits that they did not demonstrate that they have participated in activities aiming to overthrow by force the democratic institutions, but rather that they were involved in nonviolent political activities. It maintains that such activities are protected by the Indian Constitution and tolerated in practice and that they can not constitute grounds to fear treatment which is contrary to the Convention. 4.10 The State party maintains that there are no serious reasons to fear that the complainants would be exposed to real, concrete and personal risk of being tortured if returned to India. It submits that the Committee should find that the deportation of the complainants to India would not amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Complainants’ comments 5.1 On 28 October 2008, the complainants note that the State party does not dispute the facts as submitted by them and that it accepts that the Indian anti-terror police might be 5 The State party refers to an article in BBC News dated 3 July 2007. The State party makes reference to the Country of Origin Information Report India of the British Home Office, Border and Immigration Agency, dated 31 January 2008, p. 87. 6 6