CAT/C/39/D/297/2006 page 15 10.8 The Committee must determine whether there were substantial grounds to believe torture would occur in the light of the information the authorities of the State party were, or should have been, aware of at the time of removal. In this case, the Committee notes that all the information before it, in particular the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) report and the two pre-removal risk assessments (PRRA), showed that the complainant was suspected of being a member of BKI, an alleged terrorist organization, and that a number of attacks on Indian political leaders were attributed to him. The information obtained after removal, i.e., his detention and the ill-treatment to which he was allegedly subjected during his detention in Gurdaspur, is relevant only to assess what the State party actually knew, or could have deduced, about the risk of torture at the time the complainant was expelled.13 10.9 The Committee also notes that, according to various sources and the reports provided by the complainant, the Indian security and police forces continue to use torture, notably during questioning and in detention centres, especially against suspected terrorists. 10.10 In the light of the foregoing, and taking account in particular of the fact that the complainant is allegedly a member of what is regarded as a terrorist organization, and that he was wanted in his country for attacks on several public figures in Punjab, the Committee considers that, by the time he was returned, the complainant had provided sufficient evidence to show that he personally ran a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture were he to be returned to his country of origin. The Committee therefore concludes that, under the circumstances, the complainant’s removal to India constituted a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 10.11 As regards non-compliance with the Committee’s requests of 14 and 30 June 2006 to suspend removal, the Committee recalls that the State party, by ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee’s competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with the Committee in good faith in applying and giving full effect to the procedure of individual complaints established thereunder. The Committee also notes that the State party’s obligations include observance of the rules adopted by the Committee, which are inseparable from the Convention, including rule 108 of the rules of procedure, which is specifically intended to give meaning and scope to articles 3 and 22 of the Convention.14 Consequently the Committee considers that, by sending the complainant back to India despite the Committee’s repeated requests for interim measures, the State party has committed a breach of its obligations under articles 3 and 22 of the Convention. 13 See Agiza v. Sweden, communication No. 233/2003, Views of 20 May 2005, para. 13.2; and Tebourski v. France, communication No. 300/2006, Views of 1 May 2007, para. 8.1. 14 See Dar v. Norway, communication No. 249/2004, Views of 11 May 2007, para. 16.3; and Tebourski v. France, communication No. 300/2006, Views of 1 May 2007, para. 8.6.