CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 residents and questioned them as to the complainants’ whereabouts. However, the affidavits do not specifically corroborate the allegation that police in Punjab continue to search for the complainants: the PRRA officer, after closely examining the affidavits, noted that none of the affidavits provide any dates for the incidents of harassment described. The State party submits that the affidavits from village members are of limited probative value in assessing whether the police continue to pursue the complainants and the Committee should therefore give the affidavits little weight on this issue. 4.13 The complainants also provided a letter from the General Secretary of the Khalra Mission Committee, dated 14 December 2011, making similar allegations that the police continue to search for the complainants. However, the author of the letter does not claim to base these allegations on any direct knowledge of the alleged continuing police activities, does not clearly explain how his organization’s unnamed investigators learned of the alleged continuing police activities, provides no dates for the events that form the basis for the allegations and provides no other corroborating materials or information. The State party submits that the Committee should take the same approach as the PRRA officer who assessed the letter and give it little weight. 4.14 The State party submits that a risk of arrest does not in itself establish a violation of the Convention.6 The complainants’ assertions that they are of continued interest to the local police in Punjab and that they are at risk of arrest there do not in and of themselves support a finding of a violation of article 3, even if such assertions are found to be supported by the documentary evidence, which is of questionable strength. 4.15 The State party further notes that a risk of psychological harm if returned to India does not establish a violation of article 3. While letters from a Canadian doctor state that, in his opinion, the complainants “would suffer psychologically and possibly physically if sent back to India”, the author provides no basis for this opinion. The State party submits that it can be reasonably assumed that the potential harm referred to relates to mental or physical harm which might flow from the fact of return and not harm from State actors, such as the police in India. The State party submits that these letters should be given no weight in assessing whether the complainants face a future risk of torture upon return to Punjab. 4.16 The complainants submitted information about cousins of the first complainant who were allegedly involved in Sikh politics in Punjab in the 1990s. One of the cousins was recognized as a refugee in the State party in 1999; the other has allegedly not been seen since 1998. By describing the past experiences of his cousins, the complainant has sought to strengthen the allegations of a future risk of torture if returned to Punjab. Even assuming that all of the complainant’s factual allegations with respect to the cousins are true, these allegations cannot, on their own, establish a personal risk of torture for the complainants in 2012. The described incidents occurred in the late 1990s; the complainants have provided no evidence to substantiate that their cousins are still being sought by the authorities in Punjab. Overall, the State party submits that the complainants have provided no credible evidence to connect their allegations of future risk to the alleged experiences of their cousins. 4.17 Finally, the complainants submitted a letter from a lawyer based in Punjab, dated 10 February 2012, which concludes with broad statements about the risks that the complainants would face upon return to India. The State party observes that the author does not have direct knowledge of any of the events at issue in this communication; he appears to have based his conclusions entirely on second- or third-hand information, and provides 6 8 See communications No. 355/2008, C.M. v. Switzerland, decision of 14 May 2010, para. 10.9; No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, Views adopted on 17 November 1997, para. 10.5; and No. 65/1997, I.A.O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 14.5.