CAT/C/62/D/702/2015 prescribed return date.16 They claim that they have been told by village authorities that the situation in the village has been very tense since the murder of Avtar Singh and that there is an undercover police informer presence. Police have threatened to kill the complainants if they are arrested.17 2.9 The complainants provide various reports describing abuses by police and security forces in India, including extrajudicial killings, torture and rape,18 attacks against religious minorities19 and impunity in the face of extrajudicial killings. 20 The complaint 3.1 The complainants submit that if they are returned to India, they will face a real risk of arrest, torture or ill-treatment, and even death, by the Indian police, based on the threats and attacks they suffered in the past for suspected links with Sikh militants. The complainants further allege that failed asylum seekers are at great risk of being subjected to torture if returned to India. Therefore, Canada would violate article 3 of the Convention, in particular the non-refoulement obligation, in deporting them to India. The complainants further claim that they face a risk that the authorities will fabricate a case against them under the antiterrorist legislation, which can result in the death penalty or life imprisonment. 3.2 The complainants claim that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies and that Canadian authorities have failed to properly consider their claims. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 5 April 2016, the State party submitted its observations on admissibility and the merits of the complainants’ claims. It submits that the complainants’ communication should be declared inadmissible on two grounds. Firstly, the authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as they did not pursue their application for leave to have the pre-removal risk assessment judicially reviewed, nor have they done so in relation to their application for permanent resident status based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. They also failed to request an administrative deferral of removal, which is available where new evidence exists, as the complainants claim in this case. Secondly, the State party submits that the complainants’ claim that their return to India would violate the State party’s nonrefoulement obligations under article 3 is manifestly unfounded, as they have failed to demonstrate prima facie that they would face a real and personal risk of torture in India. 4.2 In relation to claims by the complainants that when they learned of the death of Avtar Singh they became afraid and decided not to appear for their scheduled removal, the State party submits that they failed to inform the Canadian Border Services Agency enforcement officer of this on 18 September 2015, when they informed him that they had sold their assets and were ready to leave Canada. They did not tell him that Avtar Singh had been arrested at their house or that he had been taken to the police station for questioning about their whereabouts and tortured. They gave the officer details about the buyer of their assets; however, when contacted, the alleged buyer denied having bought anything from the complainants. Nor did the complainants inform officials of either the Agency or Canadian Immigration and Citizenship, when they did not appear for their scheduled removal, that they were afraid to return to India because of Avtar Singh’s death. Instead, their counsel claimed that they had been tricked into paying for erroneous advice and had believed that the removal had been cancelled and they therefore did not have to go to the airport. 4.3 The State party asserts that competent and impartial domestic decision makers have thoroughly considered the complainants’ allegations of risk in India and found no credible evidence to support those allegations. The complainants’ claims for protection were made under sections 96 and 97 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act on the basis of 16 17 18 19 20 4 No further information is provided. The complainants provide a number of affidavits corroborating their accounts. United States of America, Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices in India, 2013. United States Department of State, International Religious Freedom Report for 2013. A 2009 report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions.