CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 4.21 The State party maintains that it would not be removing the complainants to Punjab in particular, but to India, where the complainants can avail themselves of an internal flight alternative. Even if the complainants had demonstrated, on a prima facie basis, that they faced a personal risk of torture if returned to Punjab, they still have not provided sufficient substantiation for the allegation that they would be unable to reside free of personal risk in another part of India. The complainants do not have a high profile in Punjab; they do not claim to have been involved in local politics or to have engaged in militant or criminal terrorist activities. The first complainant’s activities in support of his local gurdwara were not sufficient to have made him a “high-profile” Sikh activist. The RPD referred to an assessment by the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as Canadian court decisions, to support its determination that “low-profile Sikhs, such as these claimants, who were not actively involved in criminal terrorist activities usually have a viable IFA [internal flight alternative] in their country”.11 In particular, the State party refers the Committee to research materials relied upon by the RPD member concerning the ability of Sikhs who do not have a high profile to relocate within India. These materials indicate that Sikhs are located in every state in India; that, upon relocation, Sikhs do not need to register with local police unless they are on parole; that Sikhs are unlikely to have difficulties in finding employment outside of Punjab; and that only a high-profile person would not be able to move elsewhere. There is no reason to believe that someone who has had problems with local police in Punjab would not be able to reside elsewhere in the country.12 4.22 The State party maintains that the complainants have not provided sufficient evidence that they would be of any special interest to State authorities if returned to a region of India outside of Punjab. The complainants have asserted that after leaving Punjab, they initially fled to the town of Pehowa, in the adjacent Indian State of Haryana. While in Pehowa, they claim to have learned that the police were searching for them. However, there is no evidence to support this claim. Furthermore, even if the assertion of police interest in Pehowa is accepted as true, this does not substantiate the claims that the complainants have no viable internal flight alternative; that they faced a substantial and personal risk of torture in Pehowa in 2009; that such a risk would still exist upon return in 2012; and that the complainants have no places other than Pehowa to safely reside in India. The complainants flew out of New Delhi when they left India on a commercial airline using their own passports and they have never made any allegation that they faced police harassment there. 4.23 During the complainants’ RPD hearing, the first complainant testified that the Punjabi police had disseminated data concerning the complainants to police across India. But he could not explain how he knew this and provided no evidence to support this allegation. He also testified at another point in the hearing, in response to a question from the RPD decision maker, that there were no “facts or circumstances” that would make residing in Mumbai or Kolkata unreasonable. The RPD member concluded that the local police in Punjab had neither the motive nor the capability to inform police forces across India about the complainants. His conclusion was based on objective evidence about the information-sharing capacities of local Indian police forces and central authorities and the relatively low profile of the complainants. The complainants also claimed that a certain politician would pursue them if they returned to India, even if they returned somewhere outside of Punjab. However, the complainants were unable to suggest a motive for the politician to continue to pursue them more than three years after they left the village and ended activities on behalf of the village’s gurdwara. The complainants provided no evidence to support the allegation that the politician would have sufficient national 11 12 10 See RPD decision, para. 29. Ibid., para. 30, citing an assessment by the Home Office of the United Kingdom.