CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 no corroborating material and little explanation for his conclusions. It should also be taken into account that the lawyer who prepared the letter was hired to do so by the first complainant’s brother-in-law. The State party submits that the letter should be given no weight in assessing whether the complainants face a future risk of torture upon return to Punjab. 4.18 The State party submits that, since the complainants have not established that they would be at personal risk if returned to India, it is unnecessary for the Committee to go on to consider the general human rights situation in India. In V.N.I.M. v. Canada,7 the Committee found that where complainant’s allegations are neither credible nor corroborated by objective evidence, it is not necessary to examine the general human rights situation in the country of origin. 8 In the event that the Committee considers it necessary to consider the general human rights situation in India, the State party submits that the domestic decision makers carefully considered the evidence of country conditions submitted by the complainants in support of their allegations of risk. With respect to the evidence submitted to the RPD, there was no link between much of this evidence and the complainants and, therefore, the decision makers were unable to accord it significant probative value in terms of assessing the complainants’ personal risk. 4.19 The State party further submits that objective evidence concerning conditions in India does not corroborate the complainants’ allegations that they face a real risk of torture. The general human rights situation for Sikhs in Punjab and India has improved over the past decade to the extent that there is no specific or particular risk of torture or other illtreatment at the hands of Indian police in relation to most individuals, like the complainants, who are not high-profile Sikh militants.9 The State party refers the Committee to information from country reports indicating that the situation for Sikhs is now stable and that only individuals who are considered to be high-profile militants may still be at some risk in Punjab.10 The complainants do not fall within the category of highprofile militants 4.20 The State party submits that the fact that human rights violations against Sikhs have occurred in Punjab in the past and that impunity for some of these crimes may continue does not support the complainants’ allegation that they would be subjected to torture in 2012. Without a credible connection between the complainants themselves and the human rights violations that have occurred in Punjab, the past occurrence of such abuses in this region is not relevant to the complainants’ personal situations. The State party submits that the complainants’ allegations of risk, in the light of their personal situation and the current conditions in India, have not been substantiated. 7 8 9 10 Communication No. 119/1998, V.N.I.M. v. Canada, decision of 12 November 2002. Ibid., paras. 8.4-8.5. The State party submits that recent country reports on human rights conditions in India make no mention of Sikhs in Punjab. See, e.g., Amnesty International, Annual Report 2012: The state of the world’s human rights (chap. on India); United States of America, Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2011: India. Sources consulted by the IRB report that the treatment of Sikhs involved in militant activities remains an issue of concern. See Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, India: Treatment of Sikhs in Punjab within a contemporary historical context (2005-2007) (2007). This view is supported by research conducted by the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services in 2003, which reported that “human rights activists in Punjab no longer face the often severe repression that was common during the Sikh separatist insurgency in the 1980s and early 1990s, though they are at times subjected to intimidation and harassment” (see United States, Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, India: Information on treatment of human rights activists in Punjab (2003) See United States, Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report 2010: India (Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 2010). 9