CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 Jaswant Singh Khalra,27 which contains extensive information regarding the human rights situation in Punjab. The complainants further refer to the Committee’s decisions in Singh v. Canada and Sogi v. Canada,28 and maintain that, similarly to the complainants in these communications, they had been targeted “by very powerful people” with the support of the police. They further submit that due weight should have been given to the letter of the psychologist David Woodbury, a specialist from an organization helping victims of torture, who diagnosed the couple with post-traumatic stress disorder. 5.3 The complainants further reiterate that they do not consider the PRRA and the proceeding on stay of deportation before the Federal Court to be sufficient legal remedies for individuals such as themselves. 5.4 The complainants also submit that the internal flight alternative, as suggested by the State party, is not an option for them because they had been targeted by “the power structure” of the Indian State and the dominant political party “that do not allow them any possibility of protection in India”. They submit that they are Amritdhari Sikhs, reiterate the reasons why they believe they would be targeted if returned to India (see paras. 2.1-2.4 above), and maintain that the case is high profile “both for them and their persecutors”. The complainants further refer to the guidelines on internal flight alternative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,29 and submit reports and studies suggesting that there is no viable internal flight alternative for Sikh torture victims. 30 5.5 The complainants submit that there is a situation of impunity in Punjab and in India for the politicians and the police, who have tortured the first complainant on two occasions and have raped the second complainant. They reiterate that their forcible return to India would expose them to risk of torture or death. 5.6 On 14 May 2015, the complainants informed the Committee that the Canada Border Services Agency had informed them that they will be deported and that they intend to challenge that decision before the Federal Court. 5.7 On 4 June 2015, the complainants submitted that the Minister of Public Safety had taken, on 19 May 2015, a decision to deport them to India and that they filed a motion for a stay of deportation to the Federal Court in Montreal, which the latter rejected on 2 June 2015. The complainants submitted that they do not wish to live in Canada illegally and, therefore, after receiving the court decision, they presented themselves at the airport and left for India on 3 June 2015. 27 28 29 30 A copy of the judgment is enclosed by the complainants, Supreme Court of India, criminal appeal No. 528 of 2009, Prithipal Singh et v. State of Punjab & Anr. etc. Communication No. 297/2006, Sogi v. Canada, decision of 16 November 2007. Guidelines on International Protection: “Internal Flight or Relocation Alternative” within the Context of Article 1A(2) of the 1951 Convention and/or 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, HCR/GIP/03/04, 23 July 2003, paras. 13-14. The complainants submit copies of a report of the non-governmental organization Ensaaf, entitled No Safe Heaven: The Myth of the Internal Flight Alternative in India for Returned Sikh Asylum Seekers (2004); an article by Ruth Khalastchi “The Internal Flight Alternative: Additional Hurdle or Realistic Option? The United States’ Approach”, October 2001; and newspaper articles on the topic of internal flight alternative. 15