CAT/C/57/D/529/2012 were submitted to the Court did not call into question the fundamental reason for the decision taken by the pre-removal risk assessment officer. 4.21 On 12 October 2012, Canada Border Services Agency sent the complainant a written notice to present herself to the local office for a pre-removal interview on 25 October 2012. The complainant did not present herself for the interview. The Agency called the complainant at her last known telephone number and left a message. That day, the Agency also sent her a written notice to present herself for a second interview on 6 November 2012 and faxed a copy of the notice to the lawyer who had represented her in the proceedings thus far. The lawyer responded that she was no longer representing the complainant. The complainant did not present herself for the second interview scheduled by the Agency. The Agency concluded that the complainant was non-compliant and was avoiding their attempts to initiate contact in order to thwart her removal. A warrant was issued on 8 November 2012 for the complainant’s removal. Following the Committee’s interim measures request of 22 November 2012, the State party temporarily refrained from removing the complainant. 4.22 The State party maintains that the communication is also inadmissible because the complainant failed to substantiate, even on a prima facie basis, the allegation that she would face a real risk of torture in Pakistan to the extent that her removal would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The State party notes that the complainant’s communication does not explicitly identify any provision under the Convention that would be infringed by her removal to Pakistan. Rather, she has alleged that upon her return to Pakistan, the accusations of adultery made against her by B. and his sons would lead to a number of different risks, including a risk of torture, disappearance, arrest and imprisonment by Pakistani State actors and a risk of death by honour killing and/or torture with police acquiescence by private individuals, such as her ex-husband, her sons, B. and his sons. 4.23 The State party maintains that incidents of past torture are not, in and of themselves, evidence that can substantiate a future risk of torture and that in any event the complainant did not substantiate that she had been a victim of torture in the past.7 She did not provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her core factual allegation that she had been tortured in 2006 while in police detention on a false accusation of adultery. The complainant’s allegations with respect to this incident before the State party’s decision makers were inconsistent and often vague. In her initial narrative, she indicated that she had been detained by the police from 26 to 27 November 2006. In subsequent submissions to decision makers, she alleged that the detention occurred in the summer of 2006. In some instances, she said that she was detained for two nights. Although she claims that she was in police detention, the complainant’s account suggests that her alleged mistreatment while in custody was committed by B. and his sons. 4.24 The only evidence submitted by the complainant in relation to the allegation of past torture is a first information report filed with the Pakistani police on 25 November 2006 in response to B.’s accusation of adultery. The report supports the complainant’s allegation that B. filed an official accusation, but the report does not support the complainant’s allegation that she was detained in relation to that accusation. The complainant has not provided any additional evidence to substantiate the allegation that she was detained by the Pakistani police; she has not provided copies of any police records indicating that she had ever been detained; nor has she submitted any affidavits from family members or village residents attesting to her alleged detention. The complainant stated during the Refugee Protection Division hearing that a prominent local politician had secured her bail, but she 7 See communications No. 182/2001, A.I. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 6.5; and No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.4. 9