CAT/C/46/D/319/2007 4.7 The State party maintains that the complainant has failed to show that he is personally at substantial risk of torture if returned to India. The State party submits that the complainant’s credibility is highly suspect, that his overall behaviour was not demonstrative of someone who fears persecution or serious harm; that there are no credible reasons to consider that he fits the personal profile of someone who would be of interest to the Indian authorities; that the general human rights situation in the country cannot by itself be sufficient to establish that the complainant would be personally at risk if returned; and that the current human rights situation in India does not support the complainant’s allegations of risk. 4.8 Should the Committee be inclined to assess the complainant’s credibility, the State party submits that a number of key issues clearly supports a finding that the complainant’s story can not be believed: the complainant’s one year and a half delay in making a refugee claim and the reasons cited for it significantly detract from his credibility; the complainant’s allegation that he feared harm is not plausible since he waited many months after receiving a passport before leaving India; there were inconsistencies in the author’s allegations of political involvement- namely he was unable to provide details of Akali Dal party’s ideology and failed to explain how he could continue to act as General Secretary of the Haryana Unit after leaving the geographic area. 4.9 The State party also submits that objective evidence does not corroborate the complainant’s allegations with regard to the human right situation in India. It states that the human rights situation for Sikhs in Punjab and India has improved to the extent that there is not a significant risk of torture or other ill-treatment on the part of the police, and that only those considered to be high-profile militants may still be at risk and refers to several reports in support of that view. 4.10 The State party maintains that the complainant has failed to show in his submissions that he would be unable to lead a life free of torture in another part of India and makes reference to the previous practice of the Committee that while the complainant may face hardship should he not be able to return to his home, such hardship would not amount to torture or ill-treatment. 3 4.11 In the event the Committee determines that the complainant’s communication is admissible, the State party requests that the communication be found without merit. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits 5.1 The complainant submits in support of his communication a report prepared by the Punjab Human Rights Organization, regarding his case. He also notes that the State party does not seriously question that he had been targeted and subjected to torture in the past. 5.2 In a separate submission, the complainant underlines that the Federal Court of Canada is not effecting a real control over the immigration authorities when they look at stays of deportation, since the Court has established jurisprudence that if the Board decided a refugee claimant is not credible, than their story can not be a base for stopping their deportation, even when there is substantial evidence of an error in judgment. The complainant quotes cases where the Federal Court has consistently decided that the decisions of the Immigration Board are discretionary and that the Court should not intervene except if the immigration officer exercises his discretion pursuant to “improper 3 B.S.S v. Canada, Communication 183/ 2001 (2004), para11.5; S.S.S. v. Canada, Communication 245/2004 (2005), para 8.5. 7