CAT/C/35/D/245/2004 Page 7 4.5 With regard to article 3 of the Convention, the State party submits that the complainant has not prima facie established any substantial grounds for believing that his removal to India will have the foreseeable consequence of exposing him to a real and personal risk of being tortured. Pursuant to the Committee’s General Comment No.1, this provision places the burden on the complainant to establish that he would be at risk of being tortured if returned to India. The State party refers to public reports to demonstrate that the situation of Sikhs in India has improved and stabilized in the recent past, and that there is no evidence that the Punjab police are seeking to harm or apprehend the complainant or his family for their militant connections. In particular, the regional party the complainant fears is no longer in power and he has ceased all political and religious activities since 1992. 4.6 The State party also notes that the complainant first visited Canada on 23 June 1998 to attend his father’s funeral. A visitor’s visa was granted to him following an interview with a visa officer at the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi, India. The complainant did not claim refugee status and returned to India on 30 June 1998. According to the State party, the complainant’s allegations of fear of torture are inconsistent with the fact that he returned to India, after his problems with the Punjab police started. Further, the State party highlights that whilst the complainant entered Canada on 23 July 2000 with a Canadian visitor’s visa for a single entry for a period of six months, in order to support his mother who was undergoing coronary surgery, he did not claim refugee status until 28 September 2000. 4.7 The State party notes that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence that the alleged risk he faces exists in all parts of India, and that he would not be able to establish himself anywhere other than in Punjab 4 . Therefore, he has not discharged the burden of establishing substantial grounds to believe that he would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in India. For the State party, the claim under article 3 is inadmissible. 4.8 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16, the State party refers to the fact that the article 3 obligation does not extend to situations of ill treatment envisaged in article 16 of the Convention5 . The State party also submits that the complainant has failed to substantiate any exceptional circumstances relating to the alleged aggravation of his physical or mental state through deportation and that appropriate medical care would be unavailable to him upon his return to India. The State party therefore submits that the claim under article 16 should also be declared inadmissible. 4.9 The State party submits that the record before the Committee confirms that the article 3 standard was duly and fairly considered in domestic proceedings. The Committee should not substitute its own findings on whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would face a real and personal risk of torture upon return to India, since the material before it discloses no manifest error or unreasonableness in the course of domestic proceedings. 4.10 The State party concludes that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the complainant has failed to establish a prima facie violation of the rights protected 4 The State party refers to Communication 183/2001 B.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 17 May 2004. 5 The State party refers to Communication 228/2003 T.M. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 2 December 2003; B.S.S. v. Canada, supra footnote 4.