CAT/C/61/D/687/2015 2.10 The complainant informs the Committee that the threats by the Sipha e Sahaba group have continued since he has left Pakistan. In June 2014, the Sipha e Sahaba group issued a “death fatwa”, posted on the main door of his home in Pakistan, ordering his killing. On 3 August 2014, the Sipha e Sahaba group issued a second death fatwa with the same text. On an unknown date, the Sipha e Sahaba group threatened the complainant’s neighbours in Gulberg (Pakistan) with death if they did not provide information as to the complainant’s whereabouts. On 2 June 2015, members of the group visited the complainant’s home in Gulberg to inquire about his whereabouts. They threatened to kill the complainant as soon as he was seen as he was “wajib-ul-qatal” (“could rightfully be killed”). The complaint 3.1 The complainant claims that his return to Pakistan would amount to a violation by the Canadian authorities of article 3 of the Convention. 3.2 The complainant fears for his life in Pakistan because he has been declared a kafir (non-believer) and the Sipha e Sahaba group has issued two death fatwas against him. He claims that if he is returned to Pakistan, his life will be at risk, and he will be at risk of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of Pakistan security and intelligence agencies and of Sunni terrorist organizations. He also alleges that he will be at risk of being arrested, detained or abducted by security agencies under false and fabricated charges under the blasphemy law or sharia, and of being abducted, kidnapped, murdered, beheaded or stoned to death publicly. 3.3 The complainant argues that his life would be at risk everywhere in Pakistan, since there is no alternative safe location. He explains that in Pakistan, everyone moving to another part of the country has to register at the local police station. He claims that he will therefore be under serious threat to his life and will most likely be exposed to torture at the hands of extremist Sunni groups. Finally, the complainant alleges that the police supports those groups and will therefore not take any action to protect him. 3.4 The complainant adds that, as a failed asylum seeker, he may be the target of “State torture” and subject to illegal detention by the authorities of Pakistan. 3.5 The complainant also argues that the situation of religious minorities in Pakistan is worrisome, with Sunni extremists waging war against the religious minorities, especially Christians and Shia. In particular, he refers to a report in which it is stated that “societal intolerance persisted, including through mob attacks and actions by violent extremists. Violent extremists in some parts of the country demanded all citizens follow their authoritarian interpretation of Islam and threatened brutal consequences if they did not. They also targeted Muslims who advocated tolerance and pluralism. There were scores of attacks on Sufi, Hindu, Ahmadi, Shia, and Christian gatherings and religious sites, resulting in numerous deaths and extensive damage.” 5 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 7 January 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the complaint. It submits that the complainant’s communication is inadmissible under articles 22 (2) and 22 (5) (b) of the Convention and under rules 113 (b), (c) and (e) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.2 As regards the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party submits that the complainant failed to apply to the Federal Court for leave to seek judicial review of the preremoval risk assessment decision and of the decision by the Canada Border Services Agency on his request for an administrative deferral of his removal. The State party submits that a successful judicial review application would result in an order for a reconsideration of the impugned decision. 5 International religious freedom report, Pakistan, 2013, United States Department of State, p. 1, available from https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/222551.pdf. 3