CCPR/C/125/D/2238/2013 Canadian officials. The State party notes that, under Canadian law, this application does not prevent the removal of the authors to India. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations 5. In their comments dated 19 June 2013, the authors informed the Committee that their request for a stay of the removal M.K., who was six months pregnant at the time, had been denied by a decision of 12 June 2013. They added that the Canada Border Services Agency required M.K. to present a valid ticket to the Agency for her return to India by 24 June 2013. The authors noted that in the decision, it was stated that M.K.’s pregnancy and pending pre-removal risk assessment application were not obstacles to her removal. The authors also informed the Committee that they had applied for leave to appeal the latter decision. State party’s additional observations on admissibility and the merits 6.1 In its observations dated 16 September 2013, the State party provided a summary of the facts and domestic proceedings related to the present communication. The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible and, alternatively, without merit. 6.2 The State party claims that the allegations of the authors with respect to violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are not sufficiently substantiated and are thus inadmissible. The State party argues that the authors have failed to establish, on even a prima facie basis, that “the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation” 9 would be that the authors would be killed or tortured if returned to India. 6.3 The State party submits that the difficulties of the authors spring from a divorce and remarriage that occurred more than six years ago. It adds that their problems are local in nature and confined to their home state of Punjab and that they have not established that they would be unable to lead a life free of personal risk in another part of India. 6.4 The State party notes that an internal flight alternative is a recognized element of risk assessment in international law,10 as individuals must seek to minimize their risk of harm, where possible, through internal relocation or resettlement within their own State. The State party claims that in the present communication, there is no evidence showing that the authors cannot live without risk outside the Punjab. On the one hand, the State party notes that the Refugee Protection Division examined the evidence and heard the testimony of the authors and concluded that they do have available internal flight alternatives and that “it is objectively reasonable to expect the claimants to move to a different part of the country … the tribunal does not believe that the persecutors would have the volition nor the ability to seek out and find the claimants in one of these internal flight alternatives”.11 The latter statement was supported by a British compilation of Danish, American and Canadian research indicating that Sikhs can relocate outside of the Punjab without police intervention.12 The State party also notes that the Refugee Protection Division added that the authors had lived in Delhi for a period of six months and that although they claim to have stayed indoors, they did not have any problems during that period. On the other hand, the State party notes that the pre-removal risk assessment officer considered new evidence indicating that N.P.S.S. had been declared a proclaimed offender. 13 However, it concluded that the documents presented by the authors in support of this allegation did not have any 9 10 11 12 13 The State party refers to, inter alia, A.R.J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996) and Kindler v. Canada (CCPR/C/48/D/470/1991), para. 14.3. The State party refers to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Guidelines on International Protection: “Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the context of article 1A (2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (HCR/GIP/03/04), to S.S.S. v. Canada, para. 8.5 and B.S.S. v. Canada, para. 11.5. The State party refers to the Refugee Protection Division’s decision of 11 April 2011, paras. 12–13. The State party refers to the Refugee Protection Division’s decision of 11 April 2011, para. 14, and to a country of origin information report on India published by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Border Agency, Home Office (4 January 2010), paras. 20.58–20.61. The State party refers to the alleged First Information Report No. 45 and court document (see footnote 4 above). 5