CAT/C/60/D/701/2015 Advance unedited version believing that there was a real and foreseeable risk that the complainant would suffer significant harm if deported to Pakistan. 2.7 The author appealed the decision to the Refugee Review Tribunal which affirmed the decision of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 29 January 2013. The complainant’s request for ministerial intervention was denied on 5 September 2014 and his subsequent application for judicial review to the Federal Circuit Court of Australian was dismissed on 29 June 2015. The complaint 3.1 The complainant alleges that if he is deported to Pakistan there is a real, foreseeable and personal risk that he would risk being detained, tortured and killed by the Pakistani authorities, such as the army or the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), as they believe that he has information on the members of the Balochi nationalist movement in Pakistan or has cooperated with them. He claims that he has previously been arbitrarily detained and tortured by the Pakistani authorities and that this is likely to be repeated if he is deported to Pakistan. He further submits that there is a consistent pattern of gross and flagrant violations of human rights in Pakistan of people who are suspected of being associated with the Balochi movement. He also refers to the Committee’s views in Khan v Canada4 in which the Committee found that the deportation of a local leader of the Balistan Student Federation to Pakistan would have resulted in a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant claims that there is no safe place for him to relocate in Pakistan as if he is deported there, he will arrive at an airport where Pakistani authorities would readily detain him. He also claims that in the event that he would not be detained upon his arrival, the army and the ISI would easily be able to trace his whereabouts. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 15 April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. It considers that the complainant’s allegations are inadmissible as manifestly unfounded under rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure. Should the Committee take the view that the allegations are admissible, the State party submits that the claims are without merit as there are no substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being tortured if deported to Pakistan. 4.2 The State party notes that under rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, it is the responsibility of the complainant to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint. The State party submits that the complainant has failed to do so. The State party further submits that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered by domestic authorities during the determination of the complainant’s protection visa application and subsequent judicial review. It requests the Committee to accept that State party’s authorities have thoroughly assessed the author’s claims through its domestic processes and has found that it does not owe the author protection obligations under the Convention. 4.3 The State party notes that in addition to his complaint before the Committee the complainant has provided the Committee with a statutory declaration in which he alleges that he was tortured by members of the Pakistani Army. The State party notes that the events described in the statutory declaration are substantially similar to the events described in the complainant’s protection visa application, in which he alleged that he had been abducted and beaten by armed gunmen, who “were police as he recognised the uniform 4 4 Communication No. 15/1994, Khan v. Canada, Views adopted on 15 November 1994.