CAT/C/46/D/319/2007 2.13 After the PRRA application was refused, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the PRRA decision. The Federal Court dismissed his application without reasons on 14 August 2007. 2.14 On an unspecified date, the complainant applied to the Federal Court for a stay of execution of his removal order. A detailed affidavit about the present level of danger was submitted with a motion for stay of deportation that was heard on 18 June 2007 and refused on 20 June 2007. The deportation of the complainant was scheduled for 21 June 2007. The complaint 3.1 The complainant contends that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. 3.2 The complainant claims a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture by Canada if he is to be deported to India in the light of the treatment suffered by him in police custody the past and continuing interest in him by the police in India. 3.3 The complainant submits that Sikhs in India who are suspected of militant activities are routinely arrested, tortured and murdered by police with impunity. He refers to the report on the situation of impunity published in the Harvard Human Rights Journal in 2002 “A Judicial Blackout: Judicial Impunity for Disappearances in Punjab”, which is claimed to be a leading authority on the current situation in Punjab. He further submits that as a result of being subjected to torture in the past, he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, the diagnosis which is corroborated by medical reports from India and from Montreal. At the time of the scheduled deportation there was an ongoing crisis in the Punjab and Haryana provinces. This crisis is said to have caused the central government to send large numbers of paramilitaries to these two provinces. There had been a general strike and widespread violence in May and June 2007 among Sikhs and another religious sect. The complainant claims that individuals such as himself are routinely targeted by the police at the slightest sign of political upheaval or disturbance. 3.4 The complainant also states that he did not have an effective remedy to challenge the deportation decision as guaranteed in article 2 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He explains that the judicial review of the Immigration Board decision, denying him Convention refugee status, is not an appeal on the merits, but rather a very narrow review for gross errors of law. In the context of deportation these proceedings have no suspensive effect. The complainant also submits that the PRRA procedure of risk analysis is implemented by immigration agents who are not competent in matters of international human rights and are not independent, impartial and do not possess recognised competence in the matter. He claims that in the immigration department there is an extremely negative attitude towards refugee claimants and that its decisions do not undergo independent scrutiny as required by the international human rights law. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 18 January 2008, the State party submitted observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. 4.2 With regard to the allegation of violations of article 3 of the Convention, the State party maintains that the complaint is inadmissible pursuant to article 22, paragraph 2 of the Convention and pursuant to Rule 107 (1)(b) and (d)of he Committee’s Rules of procedure, as it is manifestly unfounded and incompatible with the Convention. The State party submits that the complainant has failed to substantiate on a prima facie basis that there are substantial grounds to believe that he personally faces a risk of torture on return to India. 5