CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 Saharanpur in the state of Uttar Pradesh. The authorities have conducted large-scale arrests, including of Sikhs, who live under a constant threat of torture throughout India. Contrary to the State party’s argument that Sikhs can live freely in Delhi as an alternative to Punjab, 30 New Delhi is where the 1984 massacre of Sikhs took place. Extensive literature and reports on human rights violations in India submitted by the complainant in his initial submission remain valid, as no human rights organization in India would suggest that everything has been resolved and that there is no longer any risk of torture. Therefore, there is a real and genuine threat to the complainant’s life in India. He would also be at risk because his family sought justice in his case.31 Furthermore, given the circumstances, it was legitimate for the complainant not to file a complaint with the police. 32 5.6 As regards the State party’s argument concerning an internal flight alternative, the complainant refers to the position of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees whereby an internal flight alternative is normally unavailable when the persecutor is the State itself. Generally, it does not make sense to claim that an internal flight alternative exists for those who are hiding from their persecutors. There is a systematic pattern of surveillance and control over new arrivals in other parts of India, particularly of Punjabi speakers or those who are culturally Sikhs of Punjab. Furthermore, due to a surge in terrorism in India in the last two years, much attention is being paid to individuals such as the complainant. It is thus extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the complainant and his family to live safely elsewhere in India. 33 5.7 The State party is ignoring its international human rights obligations and has no respect for international human rights bodies, such as the Committee. The State party removes individuals to countries where they might be tortured or killed in spite of interim measures by the Committee, including in the case of Francis Mbaioremem. The State party only accepts 33 per cent of asylum applications. The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, has been accused of involvement in killing thousands of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002. In mid-2006, the Committee found that the State party had violated the Convention in the case of Bachan Singh Sogi. 34 While the complainant acknowledges that it is not for the Committee to evaluate the credibility of the State party’s findings, he underlines that the rejection of his compelling documentation showing a personal risk of torture is arbitrary and unfair. State party’s additional observations 6.1 In its further observations dated 2 December 2014, the State party reiterates that the complaint is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and because of a manifest lack of substantiation owing to an internal flight alternative elsewhere in India, and that it is without merit for the same reasons. 6.2 As for the complainant’s non-exhaustion of remedies, the State party points out that he would not be removed to India without having had the opportunity to apply for a preremoval risk assessment, which is an available, effective and timely remedy. He has failed to identify alleged injustices in the pre-removal risk assessment process other than to suggest that an application would likely be rejected. His non-exhaustion of the pre-removal risk assessment process renders the complaint inadmissible. Furthermore, while the Committee should not countenance the complainant’s allegations concerning the Canadian asylum system in general, the Federal Court recently concluded that the 12-month ineligibility period to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment was consistent with the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, when considered in light of the broader removals process. 35 That process allows for the consideration of changes in risks following a negative refugee determination even during the 12-month period of 30 31 32 33 34 35 The Refugee Protection Division determined that the complainant had an internal flight alternative in Bangalore or Mumbai. No further details provided by the complainant. No further details provided by the complainant. No further details provided by the complainant. See Singh Sogi v. Canada (CAT/C/39/D/297/2006). See Federal Court, Peter v. Canada (Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2014 FC 1073. 9