CAT/C/35/D/245/2004 Page 8 by the Convention. If the claims were considered admissible, the Committee should then discuss on the merits, based on the same reasons set out above. Complainant’s comments 5.1 The complainant’s counsel commented on the State party’s observations on 11 April 2005. As to whether there is an Internal Flight Alternative (IFA) available to the complainant elsewhere in India, counsel relies on an article from a human rights group (ENSAAF), the opinion of a psychologist, as well as newspaper articles for the proposition that the Committee should not follow the decision in B.S.S. v. Canada. Counsel concludes that there is no IFA for the complainant, that he is targeted for detention and torture and that there is no possibility of living a normal life in India. 5.2 Counsel submits that the IRB and the PRRA assessments in this case, as well as the State party submission, were based on a supposedly objective view of the situation, but that they misunderstood the real situation in India and Punjab. The State party’s submissions to the Committee do not acknowledge some new evidence (medical evidence of the mistreatment of the complainant’s wife and children), nor some of the reports filed with the application for a stay. Finally, counsel submits that there is a systematic refusal of Sikh torture victims during the PRRA procedure, and that "article 3 of the Convention against Torture is being violated with impunity in Canada without access to an effective legal recourse to protect these torture victims’ lives". 5.3 As to the State party’s arguments of inadmissibility regarding IRB bias, counsel acknowledges that this was not raised before the IRB or the Federal Court6 . Counsel states that although he will not adduce new evidence on this point, a serious case of institutional bias could be made on the basis of the clear bias of one of the IRB’s members. State Party’s further comments 6.1 By further Note Verbale of 28 September 2005, the State party denies any impropriety of the handling of the author’s claims in the relevant procedures, as alleged by counsel. 6.2 In conclusion, the State party submits that the Committee should render its views on the merits of the communication based on the same submissions that have been made on admissibility. Admissibility considerations 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee notes, as to the complainant’s claim of bias by an IRB officer, that the State party contests admissibility on the ground that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. It observes that the author concedes he has not exhausted domestic remedies, and thus the Committee deems that this part of the communication is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party concedes that domestic remedies have been exhausted in relation to the complainant’s other claims. Thus, the issue of whether the legal