CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 maker considered these letters in assessing the complainants’ claims for protection and the latter gave little weight to the doctors’ letters, and indeed was of the opinion that they were likely fraudulent. The State party submits that the Committee should defer to the RPD conclusion, as it was taken on the basis of all the evidence before the RPD, including the opportunity to question and observe the complainants and form an impression of the credibility of their claims and their supporting documents. 4.9 Regarding the letters from a doctor in Canada, these are dated 5 March 2011 and 21 March 2011. The letter concerning the first complainant states that he is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and chronic pain and that at “his last visit [he] continued to report poor mood, poor sleep with nightmares, flashbacks, poor concentration, and poor energy”, along with severe neck pain and generalized myalgia. The letter concerning the second complainant states that she is being treated for post-traumatic stress disorder and depression, and that at “her last appointment she reported depressed mood, poor appetite, poor interest and decreased energy” along with a disrupted sleep pattern. It does not mention any physical injuries. The State party submits that these letters should be given little weight in assessing whether the complainants have substantiated their claims of past torture in Punjab. Even though the injuries described are generally consistent with the complainants’ account of past torture, the letters do not specifically corroborate the complainants’ particular account. These injuries are consistent with any number of past hardships that could have been experienced by persons who seek protection. The injuries are consistent with some kind of trauma, but they do not establish in any way that the complainants suffered torture as defined by article 1 of the Convention. The State party observes that the letters themselves are noticeably circumscribed in their conclusions as to which of the claimed injuries are consistent with the complainants’ account of past torture. The first letter says that “his PTSD and depression are consistent with a previous trauma such as the torture he describes”, but does not mention whether the physical injuries are consistent with the alleged previous trauma. In contrast, the second makes no comment on whether any of her symptoms or conditions are consistent with torture. The State party notes that the RPD decision maker considered the medical letters as well and gave them little weight and that the Committee should take the same approach. 4.10 The complainants have also submitted eight affidavits prepared in 2011. The State party submits that the affidavits are generally not reliable, because most of the affiants do not claim to have direct knowledge of the events they describe and that, for this reason, the RPD or PRRA officials who considered these documents gave them little weight, or excluded them altogether. The State party submits that the Committee should also give these affidavits little weight. 4.11 The State party further submits that, even if the complainants’ allegations that they were subjected to torture in the past are accepted as proven, they have not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate a personal risk of torture in the future, upon being returned to India. They left Punjab over three years ago. Members of their family, including their parents and siblings, remain there. The complainants have not claimed to be political activists, let alone high-profile Sikh militants. Since leaving India, the first complainant does not appear to have continued his activities on behalf of his village gurdwara. On the basis of these facts, it is highly unlikely that any risk that might once have existed for them in their village in Punjab would still exist upon their return. 4.12 The complainants have not submitted any credible evidence to demonstrate that they are at risk of specific police attention in Punjab at this time. The complainants have not submitted any objective documentary evidence, such as a warrant for their arrest, to substantiate the claim that the police continue to pursue them. For their PRRA, the complainants submitted a number of affidavits from residents of their home village in Punjab, indicating that, after the complainants left India, the local police harassed village 7