Committee noted that the author applied for an interim order staying the execution of the deportation order, which was dismissed by the Federal Court Trial Division on 22 December 1997. As a result of a further request from the author, the Court issued a supplementary decision according to which the author had not shown that it would be demonstrably probable that he would face torture upon return to India. The author also applied for leave for judicial review of the Minister's decision that it would be contrary to the public interest to have his refugee claim heard. However, the author was expelled before the deadline for perfecting the application. The Committee also noted that the author failed to seek leave for judicial review of the adjudicator's decision that he belonged to an inadmissible category. However, the Committee was not convinced that this remedy would have been an effective and necessary one, in view of the fact that the other remedies, mentioned above, were available and, indeed, utilized. 10.2 The Committee therefore decided that the communication was admissible. State party's observations on the merits 11.1 In its submission of 12 May 1998, the State party states that according to the principle laid down in the case Seid Mortesa Aemei v. Switzerland,a the Committee has to determine "whether there are substantial grounds for believing that [the author] would be in danger of being subjected to torture [in the country to which he is being returned]" and "whether he would be personally at risk". It also recalls that the burden of proof is on the author to establish that there are substantial grounds to believe that he or she would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture. 11.2 The State party submits that since the protection provided by article 3 is, according to the Committee's jurisprudence, absolute, irrespective of the author's past conduct, the determination of risk must be particularly rigorous. To that purpose, reference is made to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (Vilvarajah and others v. United Kingdom), where it is stated, with regard to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, that "the Court's examination of the existence of a risk of ill-treatment in breach of Article 3 at the relevant time must necessarily be a rigorous one in view of the absolute character of this provision". 11.3 In order to assess the risk of torture faced by the author, the State party contends that the following factors are pertinent: (a) whether the State concerned is one in which there is evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights; (b) whether the author has been tortured or maltreated by or with the acquiescence of a public official in the past, (c) whether the situation referred to in (a) has changed; and (d) whether the author has engaged in political or other activity within or outside the State concerned which would appear to make him particularly vulnerable to the risk of being tortured. 11.4 The State party acknowledges that the human rights record of India is of concern, but underlines that the situation, particularly in the Punjab, has significantly improved over the two years preceding the State party's submission, which should be given due attention by the Committee when considering the present case. 11.5 According to the State party, several measures have been taken to ensure greater respect for human rights in India since the Government took office in June 1996. The signing by India of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment on 14 October 1997, indicates its intention to take steps to prevent and sanction any acts of torture occurring in the territory. Even though the State party acknowledges the human rights abuses, including "disappearances", perpetrated by the Punjab police a Views, Communication No. 34/1995, CAT/C/18/D/34/1995, 9 May 1997. 102