11.11 Concerning the reference in the original communication to the 1990 killing of two acquitted hijackers who attempted to enter India, the State party does not see the relevance of this event to the present case and does not see any similarity between them. The State party emphasizes the absence of similarity between the two cases in that the author has not presented evidence of any risk to his family members whereas in the other case, the family had suffered continuous harassment from the Indian authorities. The author quotes a Canadian CIC case officer according to whom the author would be "dealt with harshly, possibly because of hijacking of the Indian plane" if he were to return to India. The State party states that the comment was made in the context of a decision review hearing in which it was the officer's duty to raise concerns about the potential risk that the author would flee, but she was not commenting on nor had she sufficient information to determine the level of risk run by the author in case of return. 11.12 Finally, the State party underlines that the evidence of risk that the author could face when returning to India has been carefully reviewed by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and that the risk has been deemed minimal. That assessment was confirmed by the Federal Court Trial Division. It is submitted that the Committee should give considerable weight to the findings of the Minister and the Court. 11.13 For the above reasons, the State party is of the opinion that there is no element showing that the author would be put at risk of torture should he return to India. Comments submitted by the author on the merits 12.1 In a submission dated 11 June 1998, the author argues that the assessment made by the State party of the human rights situation in India on the basis of the documentation submitted to the Committeef is misleading. The State party cites remarks out of context, but fails to mention information from the same sources which confirms that abuses continue to occur. 12.2 The author also draws the attention of the Committee to the fact that one of the supporting documents referred to by the State party it is stated: "I began by asking if someone who had fled India during the early 1990s, at the height of the troubles, would have reason to fear returning to Punjab now. I also asked if it was possible for someone on the run to hide within an existing community of Sikhs in a city or region outside the Punjab. The answer to both these questions, and a constant theme of the interview, was that only the highest profile fugitives, which they said would number a handful, would have reason to fear, or to be pursued outside the Punjab."g The author also calls attention to the fact that these comments were made prior to the elections of February 1997, when the human rights situation degenerated. 12.3 To support his statements on the current human rights situation in Punjab, the author refers to information from the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board in Ottawa which reports that torture in custody remains a problem in India, and particularly in Punjab. Moreover, it asserts that the recent prosecutions of police officers are not indicative of a real change in the respect for human rights and constitutional guarantees. Finally, it states that the persons in danger are the ones who are still part of active nationalist groups or refuse the demands imposed by the State, such as when the police require a person to become an informant, which is, the author observes, exactly what happened in his case. The author also refers f g US State Department, India Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1996; Human Rights World Report 1997. See note c above. 104