CAT/C/59/D/581/2014 4.12 The State party submits that the complainant failed to substantiate a prima facie case that he personally faces a real risk of torture if returned to India. In addition, the complainant has not been able to substantiate his allegations of past torture. For example, in an affidavit, the complainant’s wife claims that the complainant was arrested and tortured by the police, but provides no details or further information regarding these incidents. She does not claim that she personally witnessed the alleged mistreatment. 4.13 The complainant provides an affidavit from a Dr. M.S., which provides only general information regarding the complainant’s condition. The document was drafted four years after the alleged mistreatment. The complainant also provides a letter from a lawyer, R.S., who submits that the complainant had sought legal advice from him, and that he told the complainant to file a formal complaint with the police regarding torture and mistreatment. The State party contends that this letter has no probative value. The lawyer does not claim to have witnessed the alleged torture or have detailed information about the alleged incidents. 4.14 As stated previously, the complainant further failed to substantiate the future risk of torture. Even if one accepts the allegations of past torture, the complainant must prove that he faces a risk of torture in the future, if returned to his home country. The complainant left his home country in 2009, and his spouse, children and siblings remain there. The complainant has not claimed to be a high-profile Sikh militant. He has further failed to provide any objective evidence that the police or other authorities in India would pursue him now, if he returns. The complainant’s claims are based only on allegations found to be baseless by the Canadian decision makers. 4.15 The State party further contends that there is an alternative for the complainant to reside in another part of India. India is a secular State where religious freedom is respected by the Government.1 Sikhs are able to practise their religion without restrictions in every state in India. Country reports make it clear that only high-profile Sikh militants continue to be at risk of arrest or of being pursued outside Punjab. Even when a country report indicates that Sikhs who hold or advocate particular political opinions may be subject to harassment, detention, arbitrary arrest or torture, such occurrences are typically confined to the Punjab area.2 Country reports also indicate that police action does not ordinarily target any specific group or persons, but rather is motivated by the desire to extract a bribe. No general risk of ill-treatment exists for Sikhs who are returned to India, even if they express their ideological support for establishment of an independent state of Khalistan. 3 4.16 The State party submits that the Refugee Protection Division, after full consideration of both the complainant’s allegations and the situation in India, as adduced from objective reports, has determined that the complainant would not face a risk of torture if returned to India and that he would have the alternative of living in Bangalore, for example. There is nothing in the complaint to suggest otherwise. For this reason, and the other reasons mentioned above, the State party submits that the communication should be declared inadmissible. Additional information from the complainant 5.1 In his replies, dated 31 August 2015 and 25 February 2016, responding to the State party’s observations, the complainant submitted that the State party’s domestic procedures are insufficient to provide a real guarantee against a possible violation of article 3 of the 1 2 3 United States of America, Department of State, India 2012 International Religious Freedom Report (Washington, D.C., 2012). The State party refers to a 2013 report of the Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The State party refers to a 2013 report of the United Kingdom Home Office. 5