CAT/C/62/D/695/2015 region. Despite the improvements of the situation of Sikhs in India, they are still victims of severe ill-treatment and torture by State agents in various regions. 10 In particular, minorities are targeted on a large scale in the Gujarat, Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir regions. Moreover, the Prime Minister of India and head of the ruling party have been accused of involvement in the systematic killing of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat State in 2002. In 2016, the situation in Jammu and Kashmir deteriorated and, on 15 July of that year, a curfew was imposed in all districts of the Kashmir Valley. The police and paramilitary forces resorted to excessive use of force against protesters, resulting in the deaths of more than 70 persons. 5.3 The complainant argues that the Indian authorities are not able to adequately protect its citizens against police abuses. Furthermore, persons who file a complaint are often arrested, killed or disappeared as reprisals. If returned to India, he is likely to be arrested by the police or security forces and subjected to criminal proceedings. The police might implicate him under false, frivolous or fabricated charges under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, especially articles 121 and 121 (a), which carry a maximum punishment of death or life imprisonment. He also submits that, since June 2005, Indian courts have convicted more than 100 former police officers for killings related to false terrorism-related charges. 5.4 In relation to the question of an internal flight alternative, the complainant alleges that, when the persecutors are State agents, there is no internal flight alternative available. Furthermore, there is a systematic pattern of surveillance and control over new arrivals in other parts of India, particularly for those who speak Punjabi or who are Sikh. It would therefore be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for him to be safe in India. 5.5 The complainant submits that he has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The pre-removal risk assessment and the humanitarian and compassionate applications do not provide an effective relief to a person who is at risk of torture if returned to his or her country of origin. In his case, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act was not available at the time he submitted his complaint to the Committee. Despite the fact that he had become eligible to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment on 5 December 2015, at the time his comments on the State party’s observations were submitted to the Committee, the Canada Boarder Services Agency had not offered him the possibility to apply. He argues that it is for the Agency to decide whether to invite him for a pre-removal risk assessment after the one-year period. Moreover, the mere eligibility to apply for an assessment does not constitute stay of removal unless the Agency initiates or offers an assessment to the complainant. In any case, there is a high rejection rate of pre-removal risk assessment applications, and it is likely that such an assessment would, in his case, be rejected. 5.6 The complainant informs the Committee that, on 8 August 2016, he applied for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds under section 25 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. However, he argues that the application for humanitarian and compassionate considerations does not constitute an effective domestic remedy since it does not stay deportation, it lasts only between 48 and 57 months and the success rate is very low. Likewise, applications to defer removal are rarely granted by the Canada Boarder Services Agency. Although an applicant can seek judicial review of a dismissal of a pre-removal risk assessment, a humanitarian and compassionate considerations application or a deferral of removal application, those proceedings are very expensive, ineffective and unlikely to bring relief to the applicant since there is low chance of success. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do so under article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention, that the 10 The complainant refers to the 2013 and 2014 United States Department of State country reports on human rights practice in India. 7