CAT/C/57/D/583/2014 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submissions dated 30 August 2014 and 16 December 2014, the complainant reiterates his claims concerning a risk of harm. He argues that he has established a strong prima facie case that he was subjected to torture in the past and faces a substantial risk of torture if he returns to India. The decision to deny his asylum application is arbitrary and unfair because it disregards the evidence he submitted. 5.2 The complainant maintains that he would not be safe in India because the Prime Minister was involved in the premeditated killing of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002, and because the head of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party is facing prosecution for killing many innocent Muslims in India. There is a “systematic pattern of surveillance and control” over persons arriving in India, especially if they speak Punjabi or are Sikh or Punjabi. He cites a United States Department of State report,7 in which it is stated that, “there were reports that the government and its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings, including extrajudicial killings of suspected criminals and insurgents”. The complainant asserts that Sikhs in India are forced to live under a constant threat of being tortured by State agents. It is therefore extremely difficult, if not impossible for the complainant and his family to find a safe haven in India. Concerning domestic remedies, the complainant asserts that there is no other effective recourse available 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 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of said remedies has been unreasonably prolonged or is unlikely to bring effective relief.8 The Committee notes the State party’s observation that the complainant did not file an application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence concerning the discretionary and nonjudicial nature of this remedy9 and considers that the complainant’s failure to exhaust it does not constitute an obstacle to the admissibility of the complaint. 6.3 The Committee further recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. 10 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill-founded owing to a lack of substantiation. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, and that the merits 7 8 9 10 6 See United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2013: India. See, inter alia, communication No. 307/2006, E.Y. v. Canada, decision adopted on 4 November 2009, para. 9.2. See, inter alia, communication No. 520/2012, W.G.D. v. Canada, decision adopted on 26 November 2014, para. 7.4. See, inter alia, communication No. 555/2013, Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 August 2015, para. 6.3. GE.16-09779