CAT/C/39/D/297/2006 page 12 7.8 As to the assertion that the “threat of return to torture” in itself constitutes a violation of article 3, in the State party’s view this claim should be declared incompatible ratione materiae with article 3. It is in any case inadmissible because it fails to demonstrate the minimum justification. The State party denies having subjected the complainant to psychological torture and argues that the progress of legal proceedings to determine a person’s admissibility to a country and the mere possibility of being returned to a country where there was an alleged risk of torture could not constitute “torture” within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. 7.9 The State party points out that it always looks very closely at the Committee’s requests for interim measures and usually complies with them. In this case, after considering the file, and based in part on the negative findings of the Minister’s delegate regarding the risks involved in returning to India and on the Federal Court’s denial of the complainant’s application for a stay, the State party considered that the complainant had not established that there was a substantial risk of torture in India. 7.10 As regards the allegation of a violation of article 3 of the Convention based on the complainant’s return to India, the State party recalls that the matter must be weighed in the light of all the information the Canadian authorities were, or should have been, aware of at the time of expulsion. The State party recalls that, while torture is still occasionally practised in India, including in Punjab, the complainant failed to establish that he personally ran a real and foreseeable risk of torture. It notes that counsel reports having been told by the complainant’s brother-in-law that the complainant had been beaten and ill-treated by the Indian authorities while in detention. The State party recalls that the complainant had not been considered credible by the Canadian authorities and the Committee should accordingly attach little weight to these claims. Furthermore, article 3 applies only to torture and does not provide protection against ill-treatment as covered by article 16 of the Convention. 8. In a letter of 24 September 2007 counsel repeats her earlier arguments. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 9.2 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant’s claims with regard to the pre-removal process, i.e. the allegedly incorrect and unlawful decisions of the Canadian authorities, the non-disclosure of certain evidence, the Federal Court’s refusal to grant an interim hearing and its alleged bias, are incompatible ratione materiae with article 3 of the Convention. However, the Committee considers that such irregularities must be considered in order to ascertain whether there has been a violation of article 3 of the Convention.