CAT/C/62/D/702/2015 any specific examples of arbitrariness or denials of justice in the domestic decisions; indeed, those decisions do not suffer from any such defects. 4.19 The State party asserts that the complainants have not provided sufficiently reliable and contemporaneously prepared medical evidence to substantiate their allegations that they were tortured, transported by ambulance and hospitalized in 2010 and 2011 and that the first complainant required abdominal surgery, as alleged in the communication. If this were true, the complainants’ stories would be supported by credible evidence in the course of their treatment. Instead, the medical evidence upon which they rely consists of one letter for each complainant, purportedly on Satnam hospital letterhead, purportedly signed by Dr. Gian Chand and dated 19 December 2012. Neither letter sets out whether Dr. Chand personally treated the authors. The letter with respect to the first complainant states that his injuries were a result of police activity; there is no information about the second complainant having informed Dr. Chand of the cause of his alleged injuries. Neither letter stipulates that the injuries sustained are consistent with torture or consistent with the complainants’ claims of having been tortured. In addition, each letter specifically states that it is not for medico-legal purposes, meaning that the letters are not legal documents (i.e., not sworn statements), and thus their veracity and accuracy are unknown. Even if the content of the letters were accepted as true and accurate, the letter regarding the first complainant does not corroborate his claim to have had abdominal surgery as a result of injuries he allegedly sustained on 24 December 2012. The letter for the second complainant does not corroborate his claim to have been hospitalized from 13 to 19 July 2015 (the State party assumes this to be a typographical error, as the complainants claim that the son was in hospital in 2011). Indeed, the letter states that the son was in hospital for one day. 4.20 With regard to photographs submitted by the complainants allegedly showing injuries on their bodies caused by torture, the State party submits that none of the photographs are dated and there is no information about who took them and in what circumstances. Finally, the first complainant claims to have suffered identical injuries and to have received identical treatment on the two occasions he alleges that he was tortured, which is improbable. 4.21 In addition, the State party avers that the complainants have failed to adduce sufficiently reliable and objective evidence to substantiate their allegations regarding Avtar Singh. The dying declaration is not dated, sworn, declared or witnessed, and nothing authenticates the document, its content, the timing of its creation or its author; the alleged handwritten letter of Dr. Kholi confirming his treatment of Avtar “Johal” is not sworn, declared to be true or witnessed. Nothing authenticates its content or author or that it relates to Avtar Singh, the brother of the authors’ wife/mother. The document that purports to be the death certificate of Avtar Singh and its translation are problematic in that it is a copy of a document, making it difficult to authenticate; it states that it is taken from an original death record, and nothing confirms any family connection with the complainant, the manner of death, or that his death relates to injuries sustained on 10 September 2015. Finally, the place of death is recorded as Phillaur, a town approximately 30 minutes away by car from Avtar Singh’s home village of Johal. The State party submits that the evidence submitted to substantiate allegations regarding Avtar Singh is not sufficiently reliable to substantiate those allegations and should not be relied on by the Committee. The failure of the complainants to provide information regarding Avtar Singh’s death to State party authorities suggests that it is not credible and thus should not be relied on by the Committee. 4.22 Based on the forgoing, the State party submits that the complainants have not established, on even a prima facie basis, that they face a real and personal risk of torture if returned to India. The lack of any evidence that complainants have a profile which would make them of interest to national authorities shows that the complainants would have an internal flight alternative allowing them to live without risk of serious harm in other parts of the country. 36 The authors have not submitted any evidence which would refute this proposition. 36 Reference is made to reports regarding country conditions showing that there is no longer a general risk of ill-treatment for Sikhs in India. Only the highest-profile militants continue to face a risk. 9