CAT/C/39/D/297/2006 page 4 2.4 On 8 May 2001 the complainant arrived in Toronto and claimed refugee status. In August 2002 the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) issued a report stating that there were reasonable grounds to believe that the complainant was a member of the Babbar Khalsa International (BKI) terrorist group, an alleged Sikh terrorist organization whose objective is to establish an independent Sikh state called Khalistan, taking in the Indian province of Punjab. Based on this report a warrant was issued for his arrest as he was deemed a threat to Canada’s national security. 2.5 On 8 October 2002 a hearing was held to consider the report showing the complainant to be a member of a terrorist organization and an order was issued for his removal by the Immigration and Refugee Board. 2.6 The complainant applied for judicial review of the 8 October 2002 removal decision. On 8 December 2003 the Federal Court concluded that the hearing officer had not erred in determining that certain information was relevant but could not be disclosed for reasons of national security, and confirmed that that information should not be disclosed, but could nevertheless be taken into account by the Court. This ruling was upheld on appeal in a Federal Court of Appeal judgement dated 28 May 2004. 2.7 In parallel with this the complainant applied for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA). According to the PRRA decision of 26 June 2003, although the complainant had denied any involvement with any militant movement in Punjab, the CSIS report had found that there were substantial grounds for believing that he was a member of BKI and he was suspected under several aliases of having planned attacks on a number of Indian political figures. Given the profile established of the complainant, namely, a suspected member of BKI, the fact that BKI was listed as an international terrorist organization in several countries, and the treatment meted out by the police to suspected terrorists, the decision stated that “the complainant ran a real risk of torture and cruel and unusual punishment and treatment if returned to India”. 2.8 In a decision of 2 December 2003, the Minister’s delegate rejected the complainant’s application for protection. While recognizing that there was a risk of torture in the event of deportation, she decided, after having weighed the interests at stake, that Canada’s overall security interests should prevail in this case. She found that there was sufficient evidence of the complainant’s membership of BKI and of his intention under various aliases to assassinate Indian public figures, including the Chief Minister of Punjab and the former Chief of Police of Punjab. 2.9 The complainant applied for judicial review of the 2 December 2003 decision of the Minister’s delegate. On 11 June 2004, the Federal Court in Toronto noted that, according to Supreme Court case law, in particular the Suresh judgement cited by the complainant,1 the prohibition of torture was “an emerging peremptory norm of international law” and international law rejected deportation to torture even where national security interests were at stake. The Court 1 Suresh v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 1.