CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 continue to look for him in India. In its rejection of the complainant’s application for refugee status, the Refugee Protection Division determined that he had an internal flight alternative in Bangalore or Mumbai. The Committee has previously expressed its view that persons with an internal flight alternative are not entitled to international protection. 27 There is thus nothing in the complaint to suggest that the Indian authorities would have any interest in the complainant outside of Jammu. 4.13 The State party concludes that the complainant’s allegations of risk, in light of his personal situation and the current conditions in India, have not been substantiated. It requests the Committee to declare the complaint inadmissible because the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies and because the complaint is manifestly ill-founded. Should it be declared admissible, the State party submits that the complaint is without merit for the same reasons. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submissions of 30 August 2014, the complainant reiterates his initial claims and argues that he established a prima facie case that he would be subjected to torture and a risk to his life if returned to India. Several Sikh and Punjabi torture victims are being returned from Canada to India, and subjected to cruel treatment there. At the time of submission of the complaint, the complainant had exhausted all domestic remedies with suspensive effect. Since then, he has submitted two applications for pre-removal risk assessments, neither of which have been entertained. As a result, he has never been offered a pre-removal risk assessment. As regards the State party’s argument that he would be notified of his eligibility to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment once his removal becomes operationally possible, the complainant argues that “the decision on his application for such an assessment is imminent” and that such applications have a high rejection rate. There is no other effective recourse available once an application for a preremoval risk assessment is dismissed. 5.2 The complainant submits that the Committee’s interim measures request must be respected because he has satisfied the criteria of general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 and because the Canadian authorities would not be likely to assess fairly an application for a pre-removal risk assessment. 5.3 Furthermore, applications for humanitarian and compassionate considerations have a processing time of almost four years and the mere fact of filing of such an application cannot stay the deportation unless the application is approved by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, which may itself take years. The success rate for applications for humanitarian and compassionate considerations is extremely low. 5.4 The complainant is a victim of torture primarily because he tried to obtain justice against the police. 28 The police’s allegations of his links to militants were fabricated to justify detention and torture. The complainant is a witness in the fight against the terrible impunity of police in Punjab with respect to this type of crime. The complainant’s family is forced to suffer the same torture and harassment by the police in India. The documents submitted to the Committee confirm that he would run a risk of torture and that his life would be at risk in India. 5.5 The manner in which the State party considered the documentary evidence was arbitrary and amounted to a denial of justice, because the medical attestations, photographs and affidavits clearly showed that he had been tortured and that he would face a similar risk upon return. The Canadian authorities rejected this evidence for no reason. Contrary to the State party’s submissions, the “Country reports on human rights practices for 2013” by the United States of America Department of State demonstrates that Sikhs suspected of being militants or families who have suffered human rights abuses still face a risk of torture. The complainant refers to Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),29 in which the Federal Court noted country information stating that human rights defenders in India continued to face threats, preventive arrest, detention and violence. Sikhs continue to suffer from torture and State brutality in various parts of India, including in August 2014 in 27 28 29 8 The State party cites, inter alia, B.S.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/32/D/183/2001), para. 11.5. No further details provided by the complainant. See Federal Court, Kaur v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) 2005 FC 1491.