CAT/C/62/D/702/2015 4.23 The communication is therefore inadmissible on the above grounds. Should the Committee consider the communication to be admissible, on the basis of the forgoing facts and observations, the State party submits that the communication is without merit as the authors have not established that they face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to India. Complainants’ comments on State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 3 July 2016, the complainants submitted their comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits of the communication. 5.2 Further to their submissions of 4 October 2015 and 25 February 2016, on which they continue to rely, the complainants reiterate that legal procedures in the State party do not provide a real guarantee against violations of article 3 of the Convention. There is a substantial risk of torture for the complainants, who have clear marks of torture on their bodies, colour photographs of which are provided along with letters from doctors confirming their treatment for injuries sustained during torture. They further submit that they have provided documentary evidence regarding the risk to Sikhs in India. They assert that Sikhs remain victims of State brutality and torture in various parts of India. Further to the State party’s assertion that only high-profile militants are at risk, the complainants reiterate that suspected criminals and insurgents are also at risk. The complainants state that the State party has arbitrarily rejected pertinent evidence, resulting in a denial of justice. They submit that there is no basis upon which to doubt the evidence submitted in support of their claims. 5.3 Regarding the argument that the complainants have an internal flight alternative available to them, they refer to the position of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that there is no internal flight alternative when persecutors are agents of the State. The risk is everywhere. If a person moves house in India, he or she must report to the police. There is a systematic pattern of surveillance and control of persons arriving from other parts of India, particularly Punjabi speakers or Sikhs. There is no safe haven in India, and a great deal of attention will be paid to the complainants should they return there. 5.4 In response to the State party’s assertion that the complainants failed to diligently pursue the judicial review of the pre-removal risk assessment before the Federal Court, in fact it was the complainants’ counsel who, despite being in receipt of full payment for his services, failed to pursue the application. 5.5 The application for permanent resident status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was denied on 10 November 2015. The complainants filed a further application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds on 7 December 2015, but the processing of this application can take up to four years and filing the application does not result in a stay of removal unless it is approved in principle by Canadian Immigration and Citizenship. In any case, this application is based on hardship and does not provide relief against the threat of torture. 5.6 Therefore, the complainants have exhausted all domestic remedies available to them. As to deferral of removal by the Canadian Border Services Agency, this is granted so seldom as to constitute an ineffective remedy. Regarding the deferral of removal by Canadian Immigration and Citizenship as well as judicial review of the decisions in conjunction with stay of removal from the Federal Court, the complainants confirm that, although available, these processes are very expensive, ineffective, and unlikely to bring effective relief as there is a very slim chance of success. They therefore state that they are exempt from having to pursue them in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 5.7 The complainants state that they failed to adduce evidence of the torture and death of Avtar Singh before domestic authorities because they had applied for leave to seek United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Home Office) Operational Guidance Note: India (May 2013). 10