CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 complainant also asserts that he has continuously been receiving information from his family in Pakistan, by way of affidavits, advising him not to return, as Sunni extremist groups are still targeting and threatening his family and searching for him. 3.2 Regarding the general human rights situation in Pakistan, the complainant submits that the feud between Shia and Sunni and sectarian violence cost thousands of lives every year; that religious minorities are being killed, converted and tortured by the “hardliner Sunni sect of Islam”; that 80 per cent of the population are followers of the Sunni sect; that every year, hundreds of Shia and their mosques are targeted by suicide bombers and gunmen from “radical Islamic terrorist organizations of the Sunni”; that the basic religious freedoms and human rights of religious minorities are violated; and that the Government fails to protect them. 3.3 The complainant further submits that those denied refugee status and returned to Pakistan may be potential targets of the Pakistani authorities, in particular torture and arbitrary detention.1 State party’s observations on the merits 4.1 On 21 January 2014, the State party submits that the communication is inadmissible in accordance with article 22 (2) and (5)(b) of the Convention and rules 113 (b), 113 (c) and 113 (e) of the Committee’s rules of procedure because: the complainant has failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies that might allow him, or might have allowed him, to remain in Canada; the communication falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention since the complainant’s alleged agents of persecution are non-State entities, and there is no evidence that the Government of Pakistan is or was in any way involved with or acquiescent in threats allegedly made against the complainant by the non-State groups; and he has failed to substantiate, on even a prima facie basis, that he faces a real and personal risk of torture in Pakistan. 4.2 Should the communication be declared admissible, the State party submits, on the basis of the same considerations, that the communication is wholly without merit. Although the situation of Shia Muslims in Pakistan is problematic, the complainant has failed to demonstrate that he would face a personal risk of torture should he be returned there. 4.3 The State party restates the complainant’s claims and notes that the complainant has provided with his communication evidence that has not been reviewed by Canadian decision-makers, such as affidavits from his parents and a community leader that post-date the domestic decisions, stating that he had been tortured in his village in the past by Sunni extremists and that the Sunni hardliners continue to search for him and his family in their village in order to kill them. The affidavits also state that the complainant’s parents are forced to live in hiding. The complainant has also provided documents in Urdu, described as two police reports and an invitation confirming a Shia meeting at the complainant’s home in Pakistan. 4.4 The State party submits that the complainant attempted to enter its territory on 4 March 2013 with a British passport and under a false identity, claiming that he was coming for holidays. It was only after several questions were posed by an immigration officer that he revealed his Pakistani identity and claimed refugee protection. When interviewed by the immigration officer, the complainant stated that his fear of returning to his country was based on problems with his family. He did not claim that he faced threats in Pakistan by 1 4 The complainant refers to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada Response to Information Request entitled “Pakistan: Treatment of failed refugee claimants in Pakistan” (2 December 2008), available at: www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/03/04/PAK102974.E.pdf.