The State party’s submission 4.1On 19 May 2003, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. It contends that the claim under article 3 should be declared inadmissible, since the complainant fails to establish a prima facie case. In the alternative, the complaint should be dismissed as unfounded. 4.2On the facts, the State party submits that the complainant was interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter, and could apply for asylum in his mother tongue. After the rejection of his application, the complainant filed a complaint to the Committee against Torture, and on the same day, he applied for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds to the Danish Immigration Service, which forwarded it to the Ministry of Refugee, Immigration and Integration Affairs. By letter of 12 March 2003, the Ministry replied that it found no reason to postpone the complainant’s deportation. However, at the time of the State party’s submission, the complainant had not yet been deported, nor had the Ministry decided on his application for a residence permit on humanitarian grounds. 4.3As to domestic immigration procedures, the State party submits that when the Danish immigration authorities decide on applications for asylum, it assesses the human rights situation in the receiving country, as well as the risk of individual persecution in that country. Therefore, the complainant uses the Committee only as an appellate body, to obtain a renewed assessment of his claim, since the Danish immigration authorities have already assessed whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to India. 4.4In any event, the complainant has not substantiated his fear of being subjected to torture if returned. His statements about torture experienced are inaccurate, and the examination carried out by the Institute of Forensic Medicine in a major centre for rehabilitation of torture victims does not support his version of the events. With respect to the report of 28 September 2001 issued by the medical group of Amnesty International, which concluded that the complainant’s symptoms were compatible with the alleged experience of torture, the State party recalls that it appeared from that report that it could not be precluded that the complainant’s symptoms had arisen in a manner other than by imprisonment and torture. 4.5While considering the evidence of torture experienced insufficient, the State party invokes the Committee’s jurisprudence, and submits that torture experienced in any event is not sufficient to conclude that the complainant would suffer such treatment upon return to India. 4.6Finally, the State party argues that it is unlikely that the complainant would be persecuted in India, since his mother lives there without problems, and since he himself after his latest release from detention managed to lease out his property before departing for Denmark. The complainant’s comments 5.By notes of 23 and 29 October 2003, counsel advised the secretariat without giving further details that his client had “disappeared”, and that the Committee should base its decision on the information already received. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In this respect the Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the State party itself does not dispute that domestic remedies are exhausted. 6.2In respect of the State party’s contention that the claim under article 3 should be declared inadmissible, since the complainant fails to establish a prima facie case, the Committee notes the complainant’s information about his political activities, that he transmitted messages between his politically active brother and inhabitants of a neighbouring village in Punjab, and that he was detained and tortured by police as a consequence of his family members’ political involvement and his own activities. It also takes notes of the medical reports, which are inconclusive about the reasons underlying the complainant’s physical and psychological symptoms, and cannot be considered as strong evidence in support of his claim. The complainant has not supported his claim that he was politically active by any documentary or other pertinent evidence, nor has he submitted evidence to explain why the political group he claims to have transmitted messages for was itself targeted by the police. Even if considering that the complainant has been subjected to torture in the past, the Committee finds no reason to consider that he currently is at personal risk of being subjected to such treatment by the police if returned to India. In the circumstances, the Committee observes that the complaint, as formulated, does not give rise to any arguable claim under the Convention. 6.3Accordingly, the Committee finds, in accordance with article 22 of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of its revised rules of procedure, that the complaint is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible. 6.4Accordingly, the Committee decides: (a)That the complaint is inadmissible; and (b)That this decision will be transmitted to the author and, for information, to the State party. Communication No. 229/2003