CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 extrajudicial execution by police in Punjab, India, owing to the first complainant’s leadership role within his local Sikh community in Punjab, and the belief of certain authorities that the complainants have family or associational connections with Sikh militants. 4.2 In April 2011, the Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the Immigration and Refugee Board of the State party determined that the complainants were neither refugees nor persons in need of protection. The RPD concluded that the complainants were not personally credible in their claims, that they had provided insufficient objective evidence to support their claims and that they had an internal flight alternative in India. The Federal Court dismissed the complainants’ application to commence a judicial review of the rejection of their application for refugee status in August 2011. 4.3 In March 2012, during the complainants’ PRRA, it was determined that they were not in need of protection from removal to India. During the PRRA, it was found that the complainants had not established that there were substantial grounds to believe that they would be at risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if returned to India. The Federal Court dismissed the complainants’ application to commence a judicial review of the negative PRRA determination in September 2012. The complainants’ application for permanent residence on the basis of humanitarian and compassionate grounds was also rejected in March 2012. The Federal Court dismissed the complainants’ application for a judicial review of the rejection of the application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds in September 2012. The complainants were scheduled to leave the State party on 18 May 2012, before the State party received the Committee’s request for interim measures and cancelled the deportation. 4.4 The State party submits that the Committee is only competent to consider communications that provide sufficient evidence to substantiate violations of rights protected by the Convention. The evidence will only be sufficient if it substantiates the complainants’ claims on at least a prima facie basis. 4 In other words, the evidence provided by the complainants must meet a “basic level of substantiation”. 5 In its general comment No. 1 (1997) on implementation article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, the Committee stated that it is the complainant’s responsibility to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his or her communication, by fulfilling each of the requirements for admissibility in the Committee’s rules of procedure. The State party submits that the complainants have not sufficiently substantiated their allegations with respect to article 3 of the Convention and, accordingly, the Committee should declare this communication inadmissible pursuant to rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, because it is manifestly unfounded. 4.5 The State party further submits that the complainants have an internal flight alternative in India. They have consistently stated that they have never been involved in political activities; they have never been high-profile Sikh militants; they flew out of New Delhi in 2009 using their own names and their own passports; the first complainant’s activities on behalf of his local gurdwara appear to have ceased when he left India. More than three years later, it seems highly unlikely that any risk that might once have existed for the complainants in their village as a result of those activities would still exist there. Furthermore, given the nature of the difficulties faced by the complainants, it is highly unlikely that any risk to the complainants would exist outside of the complainants’ village, 4 5 See communications No. 243/2004, S.A. v. Sweden, decision of 6 May 2004, para. 4.3, and No. 225/2003, R.S. v. Denmark, decision of 19 May 2004, para. 6.2. See communications No. 242/2003, R.T-N. v. Switzerland, decision of 3 June 2011, paras. 6.2, 7.1 and 7.2, and No. 18/1994, Y. v. Switzerland, decision of 21 May 2013, para. 4.2. 5