CAT/C/56/D/604/2014
Government of Pakistan is making efforts to prevent religiously motivated attacks from
occurring.13
4.21 The complainant also alleges that he is accused of blaspheming the prophet of Islam,
an offence punishable by death (see para. 2.2). Although the Pakistan Penal Code does
contain an offence of blasphemy, the complainant has provided no evidence, and has not
alleged, that the accusations advanced by Sunni extremists have been pursued by
government officials. The complainant has provided no evidence, and has not alleged, that
there are criminal charges pending against him or that he is being investigated by state
officials.
4.22 The Committee has consistently viewed communications concerning nongovernment actors to be inadmissible as falling outside the scope of article 3 of the
Convention.14 Accordingly, the complainant’s communication likewise ought to be
determined inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention.
4.23 The State party also maintains that the complainant has not sufficiently
substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, any of his allegations that he faces a real
and personal risk of torture in Pakistan, such that his removal to Pakistan would be a
violation of article 3 of the Convention. Therefore, the State party submits that the
communication is inadmissible on the basis that it is manifestly unfounded, in accordance
with rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. It refers to the Committee’s
general comment No. 1, in which it is stated that it is the complainant’s responsibility to
establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his or her communication 15
and submits that the Committee is only competent to consider communications that
substantiate, on at least a prima facie basis, violations of rights protected by the
Convention.16
4.24 The State party submits that the Committee’s general comment No. 1 places the
burden upon the complainant to establish that he would personally be at risk. The grounds
on which a claim is established must “go beyond mere theory or suspicion”.17 The State
13
14
15
16
17
10
The State party refers to United States (Department of State), “Pakistan 2013 International Religious
Freedom Report” (2013), p. 6, in which it is stated: “[t]he government bans the activities of, and
membership in, several religiously oriented groups that it judges to be ‘extremist’ or ‘terrorist’”. In
the same report (p.14-15), it is highlighted that, in 2013, Pakistani authorities arrested several
extremist leaders responsible for attacks on Shia communities, including leaders of Lashkar-eJhangvi; that in late 2013, Prime Minister Mamnoon Hussain and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif issued
public statements condemning a major attack on Shia Muslims in the Punjab; and that the Punjab
Chief Minister has also created at least one judicial commission in response to sectarian attacks.
See communications No. 49/1996, S.V. v. Canada, Views adopted 15 May 1996, paras. 9.5, 9.8;
No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views adopted 2 June 1997, para. 6.5; Nos. 130/1999 and 131/1999,
V.X.N. and H.N. v. Sweden, Views adopted 15 May 2000, para. 13.8; No. 138/1999, M.P.S. v.
Australia, decision adopted 30 April 2002, para. 7.4; No. 218/2002, Chorlango v. Sweden, decision
adopted 22 November 2004, para. 5.2; No. 326/2007, M.F. v. Sweden, decision adopted 14 November
2008, para. 7.5; and No. 373/2009, Aytulun and Guclu v. Sweden, decision adopted 19 November
2010, para. 6.5.
General comment No. 1, para. 4.
See communications No. 36/1995, X. v. The Netherlands, Views of 17 November 1995; and No.
18/1994, Y. v. Switzerland, decision on admissibility adopted 16 September 1994.
See general comment No. 1, para. 6. See also communications No. 326/2007, M.F. v. Sweden,
decision adopted 14 November 2008, para. 7.3; No. 301/2006, Z.K. v. Sweden, decision adopted 9
May 2008, para. 8.3, No. 36/1995, X. v. The Netherlands, Views of 17 November 1995, para. 7.2;
more recently see No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted 23 November 2005, para. 8.3;
No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted 7 November 2006, para. 7.1; No. 298/2006,
C.A.R.M. v. Canada, decision adopted 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; and No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada,