to the response to information requested from the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board in Ottawa prepared for the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service as to the situation in Punjab in 1997, indicating that despite a general improvement over the years and "although militants and close affiliates of militants are the key category of individuals at risk, political activists and also human rights activists may also have well founded fears of persecution in India".h 12.4 In the light of the above, the author draws the attention of the Committee to the inconsistency of the State party in its assessment of the risk run by the author of being subjected to torture in India. The author argues that when deciding that the author would be denied refugee status, the Canadian authorities portrayed him as a high-profile militant terrorist and Sikh nationalist. However, when considering the author's return to India and the risks he would run, the State party no longer portrayed him as such. 12.5 Regarding the risk faced by the author of being subjected to torture, it is noted that ascertaining a risk of torture in the future does not require evidence of torture in the past, particularly since the author has not been in India since being imprisoned in Pakistan. At this stage, the only evidence of risk available is the author's niece's affidavit. As was underlined by the author, there was no evidence of actual torture, but the affidavit should be considered as demonstrating the risk of such treatment. Moreover, the fact that there is no legal basis to arrest the author at present is of even more concern since the human rights record of India is filled with examples of extrajudicial behaviour. 12.6 The author further insists on the similarity between his case and that of Gurvinder Singh, referred to in the initial communication. The latter was tried with eight other persons and acquitted of a 1984 hijacking of a plane travelling from India to Pakistan. He was later shot at the border with Pakistan while he was trying to return to India. The author was tried with four others for a 1981 hijacking. In all, 14 persons have been labelled by the Indian authorities as terrorists and have consistently been linked together, regardless of the differences between the circumstances of the hijackings or whether they were acquitted or convicted. This is illustrated by a letter from the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation to the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi dated 24 July 1995 referring to a collection of photographs of each of the alleged hijackers. This is not only an indication that these 14 persons are treated in the same way, but also that the Indian authorities are particularly interested in their return to India and that the State party has cooperated with the Government of India since at least 1995. The Committee should therefore take into consideration anything that has happened to any of these 14 persons in its assessment of the author's risk. Additional comments by the State party 13.1 In its submissions dated 9 October 1998, 7 June 1999, 30 September 1998 and 28 February 2000, the State party transmitted additional observations on the merits. 13.2 The State party argues that although high-profile militants may be at risk in India, the author does not fall within this category, which would include a perceived leader of a militant organization, someone suspected of a terrorist attack, or someone suspected of anti-State activities. The author cannot be characterized as any of these. Although he committed the hijacking of 1981, he was convicted for his crime, served his sentence, and was presumably not involved in militant activities during his time in prison nor is he currently involved in such activities. In a further submission, the State party states that it has never disputed that the author could be considered as "high-profile". However, it does not consider that the author falls into the small category of "high-profile militants" at risk. h Documents IND26992.E of the Research Directorate of the Immigration and Refugee Board in Ottawa, p. 3. 105