CAT/C/21/D/66/1997 page 6 grounds to believe that his removal to India will have the foreseeable consequence of exposing him to a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture, as stated in previous jurisprudence of the Committee. A mere possibility of torture is not in itself sufficient to give rise to a breach of article 3. While Indian authorities advised the immigration officials of the author’s presence in Canada there is no indication that they are particularly interested in his return or that they are presently looking for him. The Indian authorities could have requested the author’s extradition, as an extradition treaty exists between Canada and India. Their decision not to have recourse to that possibility indicates that the author is not of particular interest for them. Furthermore, the document of the Indian authorities - Central Bureau of Investigation, India Interpol New Delhi indicates that they are not looking for him. 4.11 The author’s past membership to the AISSF cannot put him at risk today since that organization, in recent years, denounced the use of violence and committed itself to pursuing a peaceful political agenda. Considering that members of the AISSF, including a convicted hijacker, are seeking election in public office, it is unlikely that the author would be subjected to persecution for his past membership in that organization. 4.12 The State party cites the United States Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 1995 and 1996. These reports indicate that India has many of the safeguards to prevent against human rights abuses and recognizes that although significant human rights abuses do take place their severity and amount has diminished in recent years. Overall terrorist activity in the Punjab is now much reduced as are the number of disappearances and fatal encounters between Sikh militants and police/security forces. 4.13 According to the State party, the record before the Committee confirms that the article 3 standard was duly and properly considered in Canadian domestic procedures. The Committee should not substitute its own findings on whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the communicant would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture upon return, since the national proceedings disclose no manifest error or unreasonableness and were not tainted by abuse of process, bad faith, manifest bias or serious irregularities. It is for the national courts of the States parties to the Convention to evaluate the facts and evidence in a particular case. The Committee should not become a “fourth instance” competent to re-evaluate findings of fact or to review the application of domestic legislation, particularly when the same issue is pending before a domestic Court. Counsel’s comments 5.1 In his comments to the State party’s submission counsel argues that the author sought a hearing in the Federal Court to obtain a stay of the deportation until the legality of the deportation order and its execution could be challenged. At the same time the author was advised that his removal would take place on 5 May 1997. The Federal Court only provided a hearing date for the day he was to be removed. Under these circumstances and given the fact that it would not be possible for the author to file any appeals and to have the matter brought before a judge within the necessary timeframes, the author sought interim measures from the Committee. At the time the Committee