CAT/C/62/D/715/2015 substantiation. In this regard, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he was arrested and tortured for his political activities in 1992 and 1993. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant only obtained a medical certificate on 19 November 2015, when his deportation to India was imminent, one day in advance of filing his complaint with the Committee. In the Committee’s view, the fact that the complainant has not requested the certificate at an earlier stage in order to present it to the domestic authorities in support of his claim for asylum significantly undermines the evidentiary value of the certificate. The Committee also observes that, although the complainant was arrested allegedly for his political activities, the police did not press charges or record his arrest, and released him in exchange for a bribe. The Committee further notes that there is nothing in the submission to suggest that the complainant has been politically active while residing abroad during this significant period. Therefore, the claim that the Indian police believe that he is assisting Sikh terrorists is not supported by any evidence. In this light, it is unclear why the complainant’s father, who did not report experiencing any problems on account of his own political activity within the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar/Mann) party, would be arrested and tortured because of the return of the complainant, who was absent from India for 23 years and did not show evidence of any political activity. The Committee therefore observes that the complainant’s claims, which rest solely on his own allegations relating to past events, are insufficient to establish a direct risk of torture if the complainant is returned to India. In this light, the Committee considers that the complainant has also failed to sufficiently substantiate, for the purpose of admissibility, his claim that he will be at a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture. 6.6 The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 22 (2) and (5) (b) of the Convention; (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the complainant and to the State party. 7