CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 ineligibility for a pre-removal risk assessment. Claimants have additional remedies during this period, including judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Protection Division and the possibility to request a deferral of removal. 6.3 In relation to the complainant’s claim that applications for humanitarian and compassionate considerations are ineffective because they take a long time to process and given that a stay of removal is unavailable pending its evaluation, the State party notes that, if the complainant demonstrates compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds, he will benefit from a stay of his removal until a final decision has been made. If the application is rejected, he may apply for a judicial stay pending any application for leave and for judicial review of the negative decision. He may also request a deferral of removal. 6.4 The complainant refers to current conditions in India without reference to any sources except for one excerpt from the “Country reports on human rights practices for 2013” from the United States Department of State, indicating that there were reports of arbitrary and unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals and insurgents, especially in regions of conflict, such as Jammu. However, the complainant does not have the profile of a suspected criminal or insurgent. Moreover, even if it were accepted that he has faced difficulties with the police in Jammu, he has not established that he cannot safely relocate within India. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s additional observations 7.1 In his further comments dated 29 November 2015, the complainant largely reiterates the arguments in his submission dated 30 August 2014, claiming that applications for preremoval risk assessments and humanitarian and compassionate considerations would take a long time to process, would not be assessed fairly and would likely be rejected. Judicial review of dismissals of applications for pre-removal risk assessments, humanitarian and compassionate considerations and deferral of removal are expensive and ineffective processes. The complainant should therefore be exempted from the requirement to exhaust all available domestic remedies. 7.2 The complainant repeats his position on the conditions in India and refers to several incidents and reports, 36 including the 2013 and 2014 United States Department of State “Country reports on human rights practices”, documenting extrajudicial killings by the Indian police in Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. In case of return to India, he will likely be arrested on fabricated charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act or section 121 of the Penal Code, which provides for heavy punishments, including the death penalty and life imprisonment. 7.3 The complainant has no internal flight alternative because the Indian security forces are actively looking for him due to his perceived links with the Khalistan Zindabad Force and because, in India, everyone needs to be registered with local police upon relocating. 7.4 As regards the current risk to his life in India, the complainant adds that the Indian army and police detained and tortured his parents on 4 June 2015, falsely alleging that the complainant and his associates had, from Canada, made financial contributions to a Sikh protest at Gadigarh, near Jammu. His parents were released on 7 June 2015, following the intervention of Sikh leaders and the payment of a bribe, and on the condition that they would surrender the complainant to the police in India. State party’s further observations 8.1 By note verbale dated 24 March 2017, the State party confirms that a pre-removal risk assessment has been initiated following the complainant’s application to that effect on 29 February 2016. No decision has yet been made, but the complainant continues to benefit from a regulatory stay of removal pending a final determination. 36 10 See United States, Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices”, 2013 and 2014, “International religious freedom report for 2012: India”; Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “1994 Punjab human rights update” (Ottawa, 1 January 1994); International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Indian-Administered Kashmir, Buried Evidence: Unknown, Unmarked, and Mass Graves in Indian-Administered Kashmir – A Preliminary Report (Srinagar, 2009). The complainant also refers to additional, unspecified reports.