CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 influence in India to pursue them outside of Punjab. They have also never provided specific, corroborated information about what positions of authority are currently or have been occupied by the politician. The documents submitted suggest that he is the former sarpanch of their village. The State party notes that although the complainants’ supplemental submission refers to the politician as a “congressman”, in the Indian political context this term likely refers to his partisan affiliation and not to any official position. The RPD member concluded that the complainants had not established his national influence and that, even assuming he could locate the complainants if they returned to India, he would likely have no motive to pursue them. The State party maintains that, while the complainants may face some hardship should they not be able to return to Punjab, the Committee has maintained in previous cases that such hardship would not amount to torture and therefore their removal to India would not be in violation of the Convention. 13 4.24 The State party notes that the Committee has consistently been of the view that it is not the role of the Committee to weigh evidence or reassess findings of fact made by domestic courts, tribunals or decision makers, unless the domestic decision makers’ evaluations were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice: “it is for the appellate courts of States parties to the Convention to examine the conduct of a case, unless it can be ascertained that the manner in which the evidence was evaluated was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the officers had clearly violated their obligations of impartiality”.14 Generally speaking, other than in exceptional circumstances, the factual determinations and findings of credibility made by domestic decision makers are to be given considerable weight by the Committee. The State party respectfully submits that the Committee should do so in this communication. 4.25 The State party objects to and expressly denies the complainant’s allegations that the main evidence of risk of torture or other human rights violations was not examined by the decision maker; that the PRRA officers appear to slavishly follow whatever decision was rendered by the IRB and not to exercise any independent judgement; and that there is a political line of refusal of many Sikh torture victims from India and, generally, a lack of access to a valid legal recourse in Canada. To assess the complainants’ applications for protection, the RPD heard oral evidence, examined witnesses and was able to assess credibility and reliability at first hand. The RPD is an independent, quasi-judicial, specialized tribunal. Individuals seeking protection are assisted by legal counsel as well as an interpreter. RPD decision makers receive comprehensive, ongoing training. In assessing the complainants’ claims for protection, the RPD member gave full consideration to the complainants’ claims and all the documentary evidence that they provided, including the letters from doctors in India and Canada. The complainants’ PRRA application was considered by a specially trained officer who considered any new evidence or changes in country conditions and concluded that the complainants were not at risk of torture in India. The PRRA officers have access to the most recent and authoritative information on human rights developments around the world. The State party notes that the independence and 13 14 See communications No. 183/2001, B.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 11.5; No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, Views adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.5; and No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. v. Canada, decision of 18 May 2007, para. 8.9. See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, Views adopted on 7 November 2006, para. 7.6; No. 148/1999, A.K. v. Australia, Views adopted on 5 May 2004, para. 6.4; No. 223/2002, S.U.A. v. Sweden, decision of 22 November 2004, para. 6.5; and No. 135/1999, S.G. v. Netherlands, decision of 12 May 2004, para. 6.6. See Human Rights Committee, communications No. 1455/2006, Kaur v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility of 30 October 2008, para. 7.3; No. 1534/2006, Pham v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility of 22 July 2008, para. 7.4; No. 891/1999, Tamihere v. New Zealand, decision of inadmissibility of 15 March 2000, para. 4.4; and No. 728/1996, Paul v. Guyana, Views adopted on 1 November 2001, paras. 6.3 and 9.3. 11