CAT/C/46/D/319/2007 purposes, irrelevant considerations, with bad faith, or in a patently unreasonable manner.”4 He maintains that when the judicial recourse is futile and in cases where there are substantial grounds to intervene the Court does not even hear the case and that this is not a recourse that is effective and efficient following the recognized principles of the international law. The complainant claims that no human rights organizations dealing with refugees have any confidence in the PRRA as an effective recourse to protect victims of violations and refers to several documents in support of his view. 5.3 The complainant maintains that the State party’s authorities are following a political line of refusing asylum to Sikh victims of torture from India. He states that the rate of acceptance of PRRA cases is 3% for Canada and only 1% in Quebec, where his case was reviewed. He further submits that most applicants are refused with identical motivation. 5.4 The complainant further submits that, even though Sikhs are not a targeted group, there are Sikhs who are targeted because of their political activities or their efforts to get justice for human rights abuses. He maintains that, according to Indian human rights groups, arbitrary arrests are happening all the time and individuals who were at risk in the past are still at risk. He maintains that there are no valid legal recourses for victims of human rights abuses in India and refers to the submitted article in the Harvard Human Rights Law Journal. 5.5 The complainant contests the suggestion that he could relocate and live in safety elsewhere in India, again refers to the article in the Harvard Human Rights Law Journal and states that individuals have been detained for not reporting to the police. He also contests the State party’s assertion that there would be no immediate danger for him upon arrival in India and states that there have been cases of individuals detained upon arrival at the airport and taken to prison, where they were tortured. Further, he contests that only high profile individuals are at risk of torture and refers to a 2003 Amnesty International report which demonstrates how deeply ingrained is the system of torture and abuse. He is also referring to pages 25-28 of the Danish Immigration Service Report on Fact- finding Mission to Punjab, India, 21 March to 5 April 2000, where widespread torture and deaths in police custody are described. 5.6 The complainant submits that he is personally at risk of torture if returned to India because: he had previously been accused of participation in militant activities in 1988 and in 1995; he was detained for three and a half years between 1988 and 1991 and subjected to torture while in detention and previous detainees for militant activities are one of the main risk groups according to human rights reports; he was a prominent Sikh priest at some of the most important Sikh temples in Punjab and Haryana and therefore is a high-profile figure, since prominent Sikh religious figures are among the most targeted figures by the security services; he was a prominent figure in the Akai Dal in Haryana; he has personal family links with well known militants, as confirmed by the submitted report of the Punjab Human Rights Organization. 5.7 The complainant contests the State party’s assertion that the torture with impunity in India has ended and in support describes several cases where human rights defenders or activists of Akali Dal have been detained and tortured by the police. He also maintains that after the 2008 Mumbai attacks there was a great wave of detentions, false accusations and torture taking place against large parts of the political class. The complainant also refers to the 2005 report of the Organization ENSAAF, entitled Punjab Police: Fabricating Terrorism through Illegal Detention and Torture, which talks about large quantity of 4 Case of Amir Shahin Sokhan, Imm-3067-96, 7 July 1997. Similar jurisprudence quoted from the case of Rahmatollah Khayambashi, Imm-1246-98, 7 January 1999. 8