CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 2.14 On 27 July 2018, the complainant requested an administrative deferral of his removal, in which he claimed that, on 6 September 2014 and 13 and 24 July 2018, the local police had again arrested and tortured his father and his younger brother. In the same request, the complainant stated that, on 25 July 2018, the complainant’s family had recovered a dead body from a road accident that was unidentifiable, but which they believed to be the corpse of the complainant’s father, killed by the police. With his request, the complainant filed an affidavit, dated 26 July 2018, by the complainant, which reiterated the essence of his asylum account, as well as his fear of return to India. 2.15 Because the request did not specify a removal date and the Canada Border Services Agency had not yet scheduled such a date, it was never assessed. An Agency officer arrested the complainant on the same day because he had breached his release conditions, including reporting a change of address before changing and obtaining a valid travel document, and because there were reasons to believe he was a flight risk. The Agency official found a valid Indian passport upon searching the complainant, who was then placed in pre-removal detention. According to the State party, both the complainant and his counsel, who was present by telephone, failed to mention the present complaint and the Committee’s interim measures request during a hearing to review his detention on 30 July 2018. 2.16 On 1 August 2018, the State party removed the complainant to India. 2.17 According to the State party, on 14 October 2018, counsel provided the Canada Border Services Agency with a copy of an affidavit, dated 25 July 2018, by the complainant, which he had given to the Indian consulate in Toronto to obtain an Indian passport. In the affidavit, the complainant declared that he had made a false claim for refugee protection and retracted his earlier position. The complainant also stated that he wanted to return to India as soon as possible to attend his father’s funeral. The complaint 3.1 The complainant submits that, by removing him to India, the State party would violate article 3 of the Convention by putting his life at risk and exposing him to a risk of torture as defined in article 1 of the Convention, as well as a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. By rejecting the complainant’s claim for refugee status, in spite of the evidence submitted to it, the Refugee Protection Division erred in law and in fact. 3.2 Affidavits by the complainant’s father and two leaders of his village advised him not to return to India because of his perceived links with Sikh terrorists. The Indian security and intelligence agencies could, under false and fabricated charges, arrest, detain, abduct and/or kidnap the complainant, and they were actively looking for him. 3.3 The general human rights situation in India is characterized by abuses committed by police and security forces, including widespread extrajudicial killings, torture and rape. Corruption at all levels of Government leads to denials of justice. Other human rights violations include disappearances, frequent life-threatening prison conditions, arbitrary arrests and detention and lengthy pretrial detention. Reports indicate that the Government of India and its agents have committed arbitrary and unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals and insurgents, especially in areas of conflict, such as Jammu and Kashmir, but also elsewhere in the country.2 Indian authorities do not protect religious minorities, such as Sikhs, including when they failed to respond to the 2002 Gujarat massacre.3 2 3 4 See United States of America, Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices for 2012: India” and “International religious freedom report for 2012: India”; Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2013: The State of the World’s Human Rights (London, 2013); Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010 (New York, 2010) and World Report 2012 (New York, 2012); India, Ministry of Home Affairs, National Crime Records Bureau, Crime in India 2012 (New Delhi, 2013); Asian Centre for Human Rights, “Torture in custody”, 24 June 2004; and Frontline Punjabi Youth, “Torture methods of Punjab police”, 13 January 2018. The author mentions, inter alia, Human Rights Watch, World Report 2010 and Compounding injustice: the Government’s failure to redress massacres in Gujarat (New York, 2003), and a number of press articles on human rights violations committed against the Sikh minority.