CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 and easily obtainable in India and that they were not able to explain clearly how they obtained such documentation. The authorities also stated that Akali Dal, the first complainant’s party, was legal in India and that, even if the complainants’ claims had been deemed credible, they had alternatives for relocation inside India. 2.7 The complainants filed an application for judicial review of the IRB decision. On 31 August 2011, the Federal Court dismissed the application for leave and judicial review. They filed an application for pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA). On 12 March 2012, that application was dismissed. The PRRA officer considered that the complainants did not provide new evidence (other than the documentation submitted to the IRB) that would meet section 113 (a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and that the assessment of the evidence did not show they would be at risk if returned to India. On 13 March 2012, the complainants also filed an application for residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In April 2012, the application was dismissed. On 15 May 2012, the Federal Court dismissed the motion for a stay of execution of their removal order, scheduled for 18 May 2012. 2.8 The complainants argue at length that the PRRA is not an effective remedy in Canada. They submit that the main evidence of the risk of torture or other human rights violations is not examined by the decision maker; that the PRRA officers appear to slavishly follow whatever decision was rendered at the IRB and not to exercise any independent judgement; that there is political line of refusal of many Sikh torture victims from India, and generally a lack of access to a valid legal recourse in Canada. They also claim that the Federal Court’s decisions in this case illustrates the lack of access to an effective remedy, since the Court rejected their application on the basis that they were alleging the same risks as they did before the IRB. The complaint 3.1 The complainants argue that the denial of refugee status by the State party and their potential deportation, together with the circumstances surrounding their situation in Punjab before their departure from India, put them at risk of torture or cruel or other inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of article 3 of the Convention. They maintain that the Canadian authorities did not assess adequately the risk they would be subject to if returned to India. They also maintain that the authorities arbitrarily failed to consider the weight of documentation provided in support of their request, including two reports from the Khalra Mission Committee and from Brijinder Singh Sodhi of the Sikh Human Rights Group that detailed the current danger they may face in India, without even providing an explanation of why the reports were not taken into consideration. 3.2 The complainants also maintain that the authorities failed to take into account the factual, historical context of human rights abuses against active Sikhs and the culture of impunity within the Punjab Police. For instance, in 1993, a young lawyer, his wife and 2year-old child were abducted by the police and murdered because the lawyer had represented suspected militants before the courts. Similar cases have taken place since then; in 1999, a commission was created to receive and investigate such cases. In June 2005, the Head of Akali Dal made a declaration in favour of the independence of Punjab and subsequently was detained and tortured severely for several weeks. Moreover, prominent non-governmental organizations, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have raised questions regarding the human rights record of India in Punjab. State party’s observations 4.1 On 16 November 2012, the State party submits that the complainants are Indian citizens who arrived in its territory on 14 July 2009. The complainants applied for refugee protection on 17 July 2009, alleging that they were at risk of torture, persecution, and/or 4