CAT/C/23/D/86/1997 page 6 refugee status. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the dependants do not corroborate their relative’s statements, indicating that the relative went to Canada for economic reasons. 4.13 According to the State party, neither the Immigration and Refugee Board nor the reviewing official found the author’s allegations credible, because of the numerous inconsistencies they discovered in the course of their inquiries. They also noted that the author’s behaviour between the time of his release in November 1993 and his application for refugee status in Canada in August 1994 was inconsistent with fear of persecution by the police. As a farmer, the author was hardly likely to be considered a “leading activist”. He would therefore not be in any danger of torture if he returned to his country. 4.14 The State party therefore concludes that the author’s communication demonstrates no special circumstances in support of the allegation that he would face a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. Although the author alleges that he was tortured by the Indian authorities between 25 and 29 November 1993 and says he fears police persecution, there is no indication that the Indian authorities have been looking for him since that time. He makes no claim to be an opposition activist and his behaviour since his release is inconsistent with a reasonable fear of being imprisoned, tortured or killed, or even of being wanted by the Indian authorities. 4.15 Although the author submitted medical reports to the Canadian authorities, including one by an orthopaedist who noted injuries that were not inconsistent with the allegations of torture, the injuries did not substantiate the medical reports since the reports were based on information supplied by the author himself, whom the authorities do not find credible. 4.16 In the light of the foregoing, the State party argues that the author has not established prima facie grounds for believing that returning him to India would expose him to a personal risk of torture and that the communication should therefore be declared inadmissible. Author’s comments 5.1 As regards the State party’s objection that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, the author states that, as far as immigration is concerned, all remedies in the Federal Court are in practice illusory, since they are discretionary and only very rarely granted. The Federal Court rarely intervenes in matters of fact such as the author’s case. All the case law shows that the Federal Court has consistently exercised judicial restraint in such cases. 5.2 Given that the Federal Court almost never intervenes and that when it does it upholds 98 per cent of the Immigration and Refugee Board’s decisions, including subsequent reviews (risk of return), it would be highly unusual - not to say quite improbable - for the Court to intervene in the author’s case. Moreover, the fact that a case has been brought before the Federal Court in no way prevents the Canadian authorities from expelling someone, and this is in fact common practice. And since the authorities have already issued an arrest warrant, the author can be arrested at any time and sent back to India without further ado.