CAT/C/39/D/297/2006 page 5 nevertheless considered that exceptional circumstances in the present case2 led to the conclusion that the complainant was a “skilled BKI assassin who will lie to protect himself”, for the exceptional circumstances were very different from those prevailing in the Suresh case. The Court found that, in the deportation decision, the Minister’s delegate had erred in two respects. Firstly, the decision did not address any alternatives to deportation to torture: any such decision must consider, in the balancing exercise, any alternatives proposed to reduce the threat. Secondly, the decision failed to adequately describe and explain the threat posed to national security. Consequently the Court referred the deportation decision back for the Minister’s delegate to prepare a revised version of the decision which would consider the alternatives to deportation suggested by the applicant and specifically define and explain the threat. 2.10 On 6 June 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the appeal and referred the case back for a fresh PRRA. A second PRRA decision was issued on 31 August 2005, again finding that the complainant was at risk of torture in India since he was suspected of being a senior member of BKI. 2.11 On 11 May 2006 another decision on protection was handed down by the Minister’s delegate, this time finding that, while the complainant might be prosecuted in India for his alleged part in assassination attempts, new legislation had entered into force protecting accused 2 According to the Federal Court ruling cited here, the evidence before the Minister’s delegate showed the following exceptional circumstances: • The applicant, on behalf of BKI, used an alias to facilitate his plan to assassinate the Chief Minister of Punjab, his son and the former Chief of Police of Punjab; • A Times of India article dated 9 June 2001 described the assassination plot and said that, had it succeeded, it would have destabilized the Indian Government; • Information corroborated by reliable sources verified that the applicant is the same person as the Gurnam Singh mentioned in the article; • BKI is implicated in the bombing of Air India flight 182; • The secret evidence showed that the applicant has used six aliases including the name Gurnam Singh; • The applicant is skilled in the use of sophisticated weapons and explosives; • The letters suggest that, contrary to the applicant’s statement in his PRRA application (that he had never claimed refugee status elsewhere), the applicant is a failed refugee claimant in the United Kingdom.