A/66/44 incidents of torture in police custody continue to take place, and that there is widespread impunity for perpetrators in India. The Committee noted the complainant’s description of the treatment to which he had been subjected while in detention, because of his activities as a Sikh priest, his political involvement with the Akali Dal party and his leadership role in the local structures of the party. The Committee also noted that in the instant case, the judicial review of the Immigration Board decision did not entail review on the merits of the complainant’s claim that he would be tortured if returned to India and recalled its jurisprudence that the State party should provide for such a review. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that the State party’s decision to return the complainant to India, if implemented, would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention and that in the instant case the lack of an effective remedy against the deportation decision constituted a breach of article 22 of the Convention. 104. Complaint No. 336/2008 (Singh Khalsa et al. v. Switzerland) concerned four Indian Sikhs who took part in the hijacking of the airplanes of the Indian Airlines en route to Pakistan in 1981 and 1984. All complainants served their prison sentences in Pakistan, were released from prison at the end of 1994 and were ordered to leave the country. They left Pakistan and went to Switzerland where they applied for asylum immediately upon arrival in 1995. The complainants claimed that their deportation to India would constitute a violation by Switzerland of article 3 of the Convention. Subsequently to the registration of the complaint, one of the complainants was granted a humanitarian permit in Switzerland and has withdrawn his claim. The Committee observed that according to the recent reports of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, ill-treatment and torture of individuals held in detention, as well as deaths in custody or following detention continued to be a problem in India. It further observed that the complainants had submitted information regarding cases, similar to theirs, where individuals who had participated in hijackings had been arrested, detained in inhuman conditions, tortured and/or killed. The Committee noted that the complainants were clearly known to the authorities as Sikh militants and that the Indian police continued to look for them and to question their families about their whereabouts long after they had fled to Switzerland. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that the removal of the three remaining complainants to India would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 105. In complaint No. 338/2008 (Mondal v. Sweden) the complainant claimed that he would be imprisoned and tortured if returned to Bangladesh, in violation of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention, because of his personal profile and his past political activities. The Committee, after examining the claims and evidence submitted by the complainant as well as the arguments of the State party, concluded that the information provided, and in particular the findings of the medical report, the complainant’s political activities in the past and the risk of persecution on the basis of his homosexuality, combined with the fact that he belongs to a minority Hindu group, constituted sufficient evidence to show that he personally ran a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the expulsion of the complainant to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee found that his arguments under article 16 of the Convention had not been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 106. In complaint 341/2008 (Hanafi v. Algeria) the complainant, an Algerian citizen, alleged that, in violation of article 1, or at least article 16, of the Convention, her husband had been tortured in detention, which had led to his death shortly after his release. The complainant furthermore alleged that she and her family had been impeded from complaining about these violations and that the State party never carried out an investigation into the death of her husband nor did the authorities provide compensation to the victim’s family in violation of articles 11, 12, 13 and 14. In the light of the information GE.11-45568 155