13.3 The State party requests the Committee to give little weight to the "section 27 report" because it is a document prepared by a subordinate immigration officer that only indicates that the person may be inadmissible to Canada. The definitive decision is going to be taken by a senior immigration officer and only that is subject to judicial review. Furthermore, the "section 27 report" merely mentions that the author is a member of the Dal Khalsa. It is indeed submitted that the mere membership to a terrorist organization does not make a person a "high-profile militant". 13.4 The State party strongly denies any cooperation with the Indian authorities in the search for the author and confirms that it did not receive any request from India to return the author. The correspondence mentioned by the author in its previous submission does not indicate that the Indian authorities were searching for him but rather that the State party was concerned by the possible arrival on its territory of released hijackers and wanted to identify them. Contrary to the assertions of the author that India was interested in his return, the State party has never received any indication of such interest. Even if India had shown interest in the return of the author, that would not have proved that he was at risk of torture. 13.5 With regard to the arrival of the author at the airport in Delhi, where it was stated that there were over 40 police and army officers waiting, the State party reiterates that the accompanying officer confirmed that the author was dealt with in a normal fashion. 13.6 The State party argues that the letter presented by the author to the Committee referring to his experience in India since his arrival is only an expression of his views and therefore does not constitute sworn or tested evidence. The Committee should give little weight to this document. It is also submitted that the alleged harassment endured by the author does not constitute evidence that he is at risk of torture. Moreover, at the time of the submission, the author has been back in India for almost two years and it seems that there has been no escalation in the manner in which he has been treated by the authorities. 13.7 The State party first underlines that whereas the author alleges to be at risk of "persecution", even though this expression may be a simple oversight on the part of the author, the State party recalls that the issue before the Committee is whether or not the author is at risk of "torture", and not of "persecution". It is contended that the risk of torture as defined in the Convention imposes a higher and more precise standard than the risk of persecution in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. In the present case, the State party reiterates its view that the author is not at risk of torture. Additional comments made by the author 14.1 In further submissions dated 28 October 1998, 30 May 1999, 14 July 1999 and 26 November 1999, the author states that as part of its policy, the State party is trying to restrict entry to its territory, so that since 1996 the rate of acceptance of refugee claimants has dropped dramatically, particularly for asylum-seekers from Punjab. Even though the author acknowledges the need to combat abuse by economic migrants and fraudulent claimants, this does not justify the unrealistically favourable portrayal of the situation in Punjab. 14.2 The author's counsel requests the Committee to consider a letter, dated 2 December 1998, written by the author, revealing the troubles he has experienced since his return to India. The author states that he received threats from the police upon arrival from Canada for not having given them the information they wanted. He and his family have been harassed by the police since his return so that he is not able to see them anymore. Following his filing a complaint with the Punjab Human Rights Committee, he has been forced to 106