2.2 The author states that he paid an agent to help him obtain a Canadian visa. On 10 June 1994, he left India for the United Kingdom, where he stayed for some months before going on to Canada. 2.3 On 30 August 1994, the author applied for refugee status, but his application was rejected in February 1996 by the Immigration and Refugee Board. He then applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the rejection. That application was rejected on 17 June 1996. Finally, the author submitted his case to a "post-claim determination officer" at the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration to determine whether he could settle in the country as a "non-recognized applicant for refugee status in Canada". Before granting that status, an immigration officer must determine whether repatriation would constitute a risk to the applicant's life or safety. 2.4 On 23 September 1996, the immigration officer determined that the applicant was not one of those covered by the risk of return programme. The author was therefore summoned to the Immigration Centre on 22 October 1996 so that an expulsion order could be served on him. The author claims that the post-claim determination officer's decision was illogical, since it merely repeated the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board without taking into account the reports of two health experts (a psychologist and a doctor),a who had concluded that his allegations of torture were credible. The psychologist had diagnosed "a state of chronic post-traumatic stress caused by his illegal detentions and the torture and police brutality he had been subjected to in prison, death threats, police brutality to his wife which he had witnessed, death threats and a major bout of depression caused by the loss of significant social roles". The complaint 3. The author argued that he would be imprisoned, tortured or even killed if he returned to India, where human rights violations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention are frequent, particularly against Sikhs; he provided reports from non-governmental sources containing information to that effect. He also submits a medical certificate dated 28 August 1996, which confirms the existence of scars and conditions that may be consistent with his allegations of torture. To support his complaint he refers to other decisions on asylum in which the Canadian authorities recognize that Sikhs have been subject to persecution in India. Lastly, he claims that, if he were obliged to return to India, he would no longer be able to apply to the Committee, since India is not a party to the Convention. State party's observations on admissibility 4.1 In its response of 26 March 1998, the State party contests the admissibility of the communication. It states that, in the first place, the author of the communication has not exhausted all available domestic remedies and secondly, the communication does not give substantial grounds for believing that the author's return to India would place him in danger of being subjected to torture. 4.2 The author has twice applied to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the post-claim determination officer's decision: on 8 October 1996 (when he represented himself) and on 11 October 1996 (through counsel). He withdrew his first application on 31 October 1996. As to the second application, since the author had not submitted the requisite documents in time and had not requested an extension in order to do so, it was rejected by the Federal Court on 31 January 1997. a These reports are dated 23 June 1995 and 17 July 1995, respectively. According to the doctor's report, the author stated that he had also been tortured in detention in December 1990 and July 1992. 161