CAT/C/61/D/687/2015 7.4 The Committee also observes the State party’s argument that the complainant failed to make an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. In that connection, the Committee recalls that the application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds does not constitute, in any case, an effective remedy for the purposes of admissibility, given its non-legal nature and the fact that it does not stay the removal of a complainant. 19 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from considering the communication on the merits. 7.5 The Committee observes the State party’s argument that this complaint falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention, because the allegations concern threats from Sipah e Sahaba which is a non-State entity that has been banned by the Government of Pakistan as a terrorist organization. The Committee notes the State party’s contention that the complainant has not provided evidence to substantiate the claim that the assault by the Sipah e Sahaba group was “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity” and that he would face a real and personal risk of torture in Pakistan. In that connection, the Committee notes the State party’s submission that the complainant has not provided any objective and credible evidence to demonstrate that he is at personal risk of being afflicted with severe pain or suffering by or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 7.6 The Committee also observes the complainant’s allegations that the Government of Pakistan is involved indirectly in the persecution; that when he approached the police to seek support and justice, nothing was done and he did not get any form of protection, and that he therefore had to leave Pakistan. The Committee also notes the complainant’s contention that the country’s police and Government are reluctant to take any action against Sunni terrorist organizations as these are supported by the Sunni-majority Government through its intelligence agency ISI. 7.7 The Committee recalls that it has, in its jurisprudence and in its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, addressed the risk of torture by non-State actors and the failure on the part of a State party to exercise due diligence to intervene and stop abuses impermissible under the Convention, for which it may bear responsibility. 20 In its general comment No. 2, the Committee recalled that the failure “to exercise due diligence to intervene to stop, sanction and provide remedies to victims of torture facilitates and enables non-State actors to commit acts impermissible under the Convention with impunity”. However, in the present case, the Committee considers that the complainant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that the Government of Pakistan is involved in the alleged persecution by the Sipah e Sahaba group. The Committee also considers that the complainant has failed to substantiate the alleged risk of torture by the Pakistani police, security and intelligence agencies or immigration authorities. The Committee therefore concludes that the complainant’s communication is inadmissible for lack of substantiation, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) (b) State party. 19 20 That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 of the Convention; That the present decision shall be transmitted to the complainant and to the See, among others, communication No. 343/2008, Kalonzo v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 8.3. See the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2, at para. 18. See also communication No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.5. 11