CAT/C/60/D/701/2015 Advance unedited version 7.5 In the present case, the complainant claims that in case of return, there is a real, foreseeable and personal risk that he would be detained, tortured and killed by the Pakistani authorities as he is believed to have information on the Balochi nationalist movement in Pakistan or to have 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 removed to Pakistan. He also claims that there is no safe place for him to relocate in Pakistan. The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the complainant has failed to substantiate that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he would be subjected to torture by the authorities if he is returned to Pakistan; that his claims have been reviewed by the competent domestic authorities, in accordance with domestic legislation and taking into account the current human rights situation in Pakistan; and that the domestic authorities determined that he would not be of interest to the Pakistani authorities and would not suffer harm if returned to Pakistan. 7.6 The Committee notes that in its decisions the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Refugee Review Tribunal accepted the complainant’s claim that in 2012, he had been arbitrarily detained and subjected to ill-treatment by Pakistani authorities. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the fact that the complainant has in various interviews and submissions referred to the perpetrators of this treatment as being members of different Pakistani authorities raises doubts as to his credibility. The Committee further notes the author’s argument that he was communicating via interpreters during the asylum proceedings and that he has always been consistent in describing the perpetrators as armed, in uniform and representing Pakistani authorities. The Committee finds the explanation provided by the complainant to be reasonable and does not consider that the variation of terminology in his declarations raises doubts about his credibility. 7.7 The Committee notes that as per country information publicly available, 8 Pakistani authorities, particularly its intelligence agencies, have been reported to target ethnic Balochs suspected of involvement in the Balochi nationalist movement for enforced disappearance. It is further noted in country reports that most of the victims appeared to have been targeted because of alleged participation in Baloch nationalist parties and movements, as well as Baloch Student Organizations. It is also noted that in several cases, people appeared to have been targeted because of their tribal affiliation, especially when a particular tribe, such as the Bugti or Mengal, was involved in fighting with Pakistan’s armed forces. It is further noted that the exact number of disappearances perpetrated by Pakistan’s security forces in the province remains unknown but that Baloch nationalists claim thousands of cases while Balochistan provincial authorities on several occasions have cited the figure of about 1,000 enforced disappearances. As per country information, many cases remain unreported as families and witnesses often prefer not to report cases to the authorities or human rights organizations because of fear of retaliation by the authorities. 9 As regards the arguments presented by the complainant and the State party regarding a safe place to which the complainant could potentially relocate within Pakistan, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with its jurisprudence, the notion of “local danger” does not provide for measurable criteria and is not sufficient to entirely dispel the personal danger of being tortured.10 8 9 10 8 Human Rights Watch, ‘Enforced Disappearances by Pakistan Security Forces in Balochistan’, July 2011. Ibid. See communication Nos. 338/2008, Mondal v. Sweden, Views adopted on 23 May 2011, paragraph 7.4 and 343/2008 Kalonzo v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 May 2012, paragraph 9.7.