CAT/C/57/D/583/2014 in 2009 not credible. The Division reasoned that if the police had, as alleged, sent 12 police officers hundreds of kilometres away to arrest the complainant in Chandigarh, brought him back to Punjab under police escort and accused him of conspiring to murder an important leader, it was neither logical nor plausible that he would be released two days later and permitted to keep his passport. Nor was it logical that 12 police officers would have located the complainant, given that he was regularly moved by his agent (who did not provide his real name to landlords), that the complainant lived in hiding and did not go out and that he did not know the addresses of the places to which he was taken. The Division found the complainant’s only explanation — that his parent’s telephone may have been wiretapped — to be unsatisfactory, as there is no credible evidence that the police in Punjab have the means or resources to do this. 4.4 The Division also noted that the complainant had no difficulty leaving India on a valid passport and with a Canadian student visa, despite being allegedly suspected by police of conspiring to assassinate a leader. The Division referred to a decision of the Federal Court of Canada, in which it is stated that the fact that a refugee protection claimant is able to leave his country using a legal passport, without any evidence that officials were bribed to permit his departure, is a factor indicating that the claimant is not being sought by the authorities.5 During his hearing before the Division, the complainant was represented by counsel, had access to the assistance of an accredited interpreter, was able to provide oral testimony and respond to questions asked. The complainant’s actions demonstrate a complete lack of subjective fear and, rather, as noted by the Division, the preparations he made over a three-year period are evidence of his intention to study abroad as he had been doing in Canada. The complainant took English courses in 2009 and applied for a Canadian student visa after enrolling in the Management and Health Care Technology programme in a Canadian university. 4.5 The complainant has not substantiated his allegations of past torture. He has not provided contemporaneous documents or official documents of any kind to corroborate his account that he was detained by the local police. Nor has he provided credible contemporaneous evidence to support his allegations of torture. He relies on an affidavit from S. that does not suggest that S. has any personal knowledge of the alleged torture. The statements in the affidavit are also vague. S. does not indicate how he learned of the information provided in his statement, he does not refer to any dates when asserting that the complainant was tortured, he is vague as to the number of occasions he believes the torture occurred and he does not provide any specific details regarding the events. Moreover, the affidavit is not contemporaneous — it is dated 28 February 2013, more than three years after the complainant’s alleged encounter with the police. As such, the affidavit has little probative value. The letter that the complainant submitted from a medical doctor was prepared more than a year and a half after the complainant alleges that the last event involving the police occurred. It is neither a contemporaneously prepared medical record nor a notarized affidavit. The description of the complainant’s injuries is very general and no reason is given for the conclusion that common injuries such as these would be attributable to police beatings. Furthermore, the letter does not state — nor is there any reason to conclude — that the complainant was subjected to torture. This document is also of little probative value. 4.6 Even if the complainant’s allegations that he was tortured in the past are accepted as proven, the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that he would be at a personal risk of torture in the future upon return to India. The complainant left Punjab several years ago; he has not claimed to be a high-profile Sikh militant, nor does he even claim to have any association with or knowledge of Sikh militants. In fact, at no time 5 4 The State party cites Ma v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2011 FC 417. GE.16-09779