between 1984 and 1995, reliable sources of information attest to significant progress since 1995 in "reigning in" the Punjab police and providing redress to victims of earlier abuses. According to the US Department of State, "the pattern of disappearances prevalent in the early 1990s appears to be at end" and action has been taken against several of the police officials implicated.b 11.6 The State party also refers to other supporting documentation to the effect that while in the late 1980s and early 1990s human rights violations by the police were tolerated and overlooked by the Government, steps have since been taken to ensure that perpetrators do not go unpunished.c An indication of this change is the revival of many cases against Punjab police officers which had been pending before the Supreme Court for many years and the initiation of recent investigations led by the Central Bureau of Investigation. These actions confirm that impunity for the Punjab police has come to an end and, although some violations might still occur, the probability of future cases of disappearances involving the Punjab police is very low.d It is finally noted that judicial protection for persons detained or arrested has improved. A person who claims to have been arrested arbitrarily will be able to inform a lawyer and have judicial access. 11.7 With reference to the above-mentioned sources, the State party considers that torture is not currently prevalent in Punjab. The same documentary evidence also demonstrates that torture is not practised in all parts of India and that the author would therefore not be at risk. 11.8 The State party further argues that there is no evidence that the author has been tortured by the Indian authorities in the past or since his return to India. It refers to press articles stating that the author has not been subjected to torture during questioning, the Indian authorities being very conscious of the international scrutiny of their treatment of the author.e 11.9 It is also submitted by the State party that the Indian authorities would not have any opportunity to torture the author since he has already been convicted and served his sentence. India has indeed assimilated the principle of non bis in idem both in its Constitution and by adhering to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which contains the principle in its article 14 (7). The fact that there are no new charges against the author is also consistent with the fact that India has not requested the author's extradition. Finally, the State party mentions that the Deputy Commissioner of Police has confirmed in the press that no action could be taken against the author since he has already been convicted and served his sentence. 11.10 With regard to the affidavit of the author's niece, the State party claims that it constitutes hearsay in that she repeats statements she believes the author made. Furthermore, the statement of the niece that "the CBI investigator then threatened [her] uncle that they would stay around him", even if true, would not be totally unreasonable given the past history of the author and does not demonstrate a risk of torture. Moreover, the State party argues that the facts presented in the affidavit do not amount to "mental torture" as they do not meet the requirements of article 1, paragraph 1, of the Convention. The Indian authorities have indeed not committed any act with the intention of causing the author severe mental pain or suffering. b US State Department, India Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996. c The Documentation, Information and Research Branch, Immigration and Refugee Board, "India: Information from Four Specialists on the Punjab", Ottawa, 17 February 1997. d Ibid. e "Hijacker OK in the old country: An Indo-Canada newspaper reports an assurance that Tejinder Pal Singh will be safe in India", Vancouver Sun, 5 January 1998. 103