CAT/C/61/D/687/2015 4.12 The State party also submits that the complainant is inconsistent in the way he describes his religious affiliation: at times he describes himself as Sunni Muslim, while submitting on other occasions that he belongs to the minority Shia sect of Islam and may be killed by radical members of the Sunni sect of Islam. 4.13 Finally, the State party argues that the complainant has not provided any credible evidence that he was tortured in the past within the meaning of the Convention. The incidents described by the complainant do not reach the level of severity required to meet the definition of torture under article 1 of the Convention: the complainant alleged that he was assaulted on 8 August 2010, when he intervened to help his employee W.B. Although the complainant allegedly sustained injuries which required some medical attention, he has not provided any medical analysis to show how those injuries would amount to torture. Even if the nature of the attack described by the complainant constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, contrary to the obligations of Pakistan under article 16, the State party notes that the article 3 obligation of non-refoulement applies only with respect to a real risk of being subjected to torture. 4.14 In addition, the complainant has provided no evidence to show that Sipah e Sahaba was acting in an official capacity, on behalf of officials of Pakistan or with the consent or acquiescence of officials of Pakistan. The complainant claims that he attempted to submit a complaint with the police about what happened on 8 August 2010 and that the police would not register the complaint or take any action against the individuals involved. Although objective country reports note that the police of Pakistan can be ineffective at addressing allegations of sectarian violence, the complainant has not demonstrated that any failure by the police to act in his situation was tantamount to consent or acquiescence. The State party considers that, unlike in the case of Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia,8 there is no evidence, and the complainant does not allege that the police were informed of any specific threats faced by the complainant or that they were present at the time but failed to intervene. The failure of the police to take action with respect to the incident complained of by the complainant is insufficient to support an allegation that the police either consented to or acquiesced to the actions of Sipah e Sahaba in relation to either W.B. or the complainant. Indeed, the complainant testified before the Refugee Protection Division that he was aware that the police had previously raided Sipah e Sahaba’s offices and mosque. 4.15 The State party considers that although the complainant claims that he came to Canada to save his life, his own actions belie that claim. The State party informs the Committee that it issued a visitor’s visa to the complainant on 8 October 2010, but he did not leave Pakistan until 10 February 2011. He did not claim refugee protection immediately upon arrival in Canada. Instead, he waited until after his visa had expired on 9 April 2011 before making a claim for protection on 20 May 2011. The State party considers that the complainant’s past behaviour is not consistent with that of someone who has a fear for his life. 4.16 The State party also submits that all domestic decision makers determined that the complainant would not be at personal risk of torture upon his return to Pakistan. The complainant alleges that, having been named a blasphemer and kafir, he will be killed if he returns to Pakistan. To support that allegation, he claims that “the majority” of scholars or clerics in Islam openly support waging a war on infidels. In that connection, he relies on a quote from Abu Hamza al-Masri, a former cleric who preached Islamic fundamentalism and militant Islamism.9 He also relies on an article reporting on the assassination of the Governor of Punjab on 4 January 2011, and states that if a high-ranking official could be killed then he could also face the same fate. However, the State party considers that it is clear from the actions of the Government of Pakistan, as described in the article, that “it does not condone vigilante violence by Sunni extremists”.10 8 9 10 6 See communication No. 161/2000, decision adopted on 21 November 2002, para. 9.2. The State party explains that Al-Masri is a convicted terrorist currently serving a life sentence in the United States of America and cannot be considered a credible source of information on Islam. The State party refers to the press article submitted by the complainant reporting on the assassination of the Governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, on 4 January 2011, which he used in order to argue that if a high-ranking official could be killed then he could also face the same fate.