CAT/C/59/D/581/2014 Convention. The complainant has submitted affidavits, reports from doctors and pictures depicting signs of torture as proof that he was subjected to torture in the past. Despite the absence of any real change for Sikhs in India, the State party is deporting them back to their home country, where they risk torture. 5.2 The complainant contends that he has established a strong prima facie case before the State party’s domestic authorities and before the Committee. There is clear evidence, as submitted by the complainant, that he and his family have suffered torture and mistreatment. There is no reason to doubt these submitted documents. The State party is wrong in assuming that only high-profile Sikh militants are likely to be persecuted. In a report published in 2013, the United States Department of State suggested that the Government and its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals and insurgents. 5.3 The complainant also reiterates his position towards the general human rights situation in India. There are reports of massive violations, including detention and torture of political activists, not only in Punjab, but in other parts of India as well. The complainant also refers to some documented evidence of mass graves and arbitrary detention of Sikhs. The State party authorities, including the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada and the Federal Court, erred in applying the law and relied on erroneous findings of fact. 5.4 Regarding the suggested alternative of internal flight, the complainant submits that the alternative does not make sense. The State party’s human rights obligations must be fulfilled, and the State party should not encourage impunity for those who subjected the complainant to abuse. 5.5 The complainant claims that, since his pre-removal risk assessment application has been denied, there are no domestic remedies left to him. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case, the State party argues that the complainant has not availed himself of the pre-removal risk assessment process. The Committee also notes that, at the time of the consideration of the communication, the complainant’s pre-removal risk assessment application had been considered and denied. Regarding the “new allegations” raised in the communication before the Committee, compared with the allegations placed before the domestic authorities, the Committee considers that the main thrust of the allegations put forward by the complainant remains the same throughout the proceedings. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility; it declares the communication admissible as far as the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention is concerned, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 6