CAT/C/68/D/568/2013 would be open to the complainant to submit any new evidence he presents to the Committee in support of any application for a pre-removal risk assessment, including the affidavits by his father and the councillors. The complainant has not argued before the Committee that the pre-removal risk assessment process would be an ineffective remedy. In other cases, the Committee has expressed its view that new evidence emerging after the conclusion of domestic proceedings must first be subjected to domestic review to allow the authorities to examine the evidence.8 The Committee has consistently stated that it is for domestic tribunals, and not the Committee, to evaluate facts and evidence. 9 4.6 Furthermore, the complaint is also inadmissible because it is manifestly ill-founded. First, the complainant has not provided evidence to sufficiently substantiate a real and personal risk of torture in Jammu. Second, conditions in India are such that, even if the complainant could be said to face a real risk of torture in Jammu, which the State party contests, he has an internal flight alternative elsewhere in India. 4.7 As to the complainant’s claim that local police officers in Jammu tortured him on two occasions while in custody, incidents of past torture are not, in and of themselves, evidence substantiating a future risk of torture. However, the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that he is a victim of torture. He has not submitted any objective, contemporaneous documents attesting to his medical treatment, as the letter from the doctor of the Kanav Bone and Joint Clinic was issued some 18 months after the most recent event described. The complainant has provided police reports, court transcripts and the judgment of the Jammu Court, which all involve proceedings against his uncle and/or his uncle’s co-accused and which took place in 2000. According to the complainant’s own account, his uncle was acquitted of all charges in 2002 and experienced no further problems with the police until 2009. The newspaper article dated 18 March 2000 similarly relates to proceedings involving his uncle in 2000. This evidence fails to substantiate that the complainant was tortured in 2010 and 2011. 4.8 As regards the affidavits by the complainant’s father and two councillors, they recount the events leading up to the complainant’s departure from India and include a brief statement about the complainant being tortured on both occasions that he was detained. No further details are provided about these events. In addition, the affidavits of the councillors declare that the complainant’s “parents” were detained and tortured by police during the alleged incident in October 2013. Conversely, the affidavit provided by the father states that only he was taken into custody, leaving doubt as to the objective corroboration of evidence provided by the complainant’s close relative with a subjective interest in him remaining in Canada. Furthermore, none of the submitted documents identifies any future risk of torture that the complainant may face elsewhere in India. 4.9 Overall, the evidence provided is neither contemporaneous nor sufficiently detailed to corroborate the complainant’s account of his detention and torture by local police. Neither is there objective documentary evidence, such as an arrest warrant or indictment, to substantiate his claim that the police would continue to pursue him in Jammu or elsewhere in India. The complainant appears to be the only member of his family to have been pursued regarding the whereabouts of his uncle. He spent one month in hiding in Punjab and a further three months in New Delhi without incident before leaving India on his own passport. 4.10 Furthermore, it is unnecessary for the Committee to consider the general human rights situation in India, because the complainant has not established that he would be at personal risk upon return. 10 Nevertheless, recent and objective documentary reports demonstrate a marked improvement in the human rights situation of Sikhs to the extent that there is no general risk of ill-treatment on return solely on the basis of one’s real or perceived political opinion. 11 India is a secular republic in which religious freedom is respected by the Government. 12 Citizens are not required to register their faith. 13 While the 8 9 10 11 12 6 K.K.H. v. Canada (CAT/C/15/D/35/1995), para. 5; and A.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/14/D/24/1995), para. 4. The State party cites, inter alia, S.P.A. v. Canada (CAT/C/37/D/282/2005), para. 7.6. V.N.I.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/29/D/119/1998), para. 8.5. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, “Operational guidance note: India” (May 2013), para. 3.9.13. See United States, Department of State, “International religious freedom report for 2012: India”.