ammunition for the militants. He denies that he provided contradictory evidence on his employee and submits that his brother-in-law is in hiding and that his son has faced severe harassment. Despite the State party’s claim to the contrary, the author insists that the pictures of the marks on his back were presented to the Board. He denies that no new evidence was presented to the PRRA and refers to the affidavits of the four local mayors (Sarpanch) relating to the danger he would suffer on return and the detention of his wife and son. these circumstances, the Committee need not determine whether the proceedings relating to the author’s deportation fell within the scope of application of articles 13 (as a decision upon which an alien lawfully present is expelled) or 14 (determination of rights and duties in a suit at law).8 This part accordingly is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee recalls that States parties have the obligation not to expose individuals to a real risk of being killed or subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return to another country by way of their extradition, expulsion or refoulement. 9 The Committee must therefore decide whether there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of his removal to India, the author would be subjected to treatment prohibited by articles 6 and 7. 10 The Committee notes that the Refugee Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board, after thorough examination, rejected the asylum application of the author on the basis of lack of credibility the implausibility of his testimony and supporting evidence (para. 2.4 above) and that the rejection of this Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application was based on similar grounds. It further notes that in both cases applications for leave to appeal were rejected by the Federal Court (para. 2.5 above). The author has not shown sufficiently why these decisions were contrary to the standard set out above, nor has he adduced sufficient evidence in support of a claim to the effect that he would be exposed to a real and imminent risk of violations of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant if deported to India. The Committee accordingly concludes that his claim is also inadmissible as insufficiently substantiated under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 5.2 As to his claims of torture, the author submits that according to the evidence presented before the Indian Human Rights Commission, the Indian courts and international human rights organizations, the detention and torture he has described is consistent with the modus operandi of the Punjab police. The author notes that quotations from the Danish Immigration Service report referred to by the domestic authorities do not reflect the true conclusions of the report. Arbitrary arrests continue to take place, individuals other than those who are high-profile are at risk, and there is no clear internal flight alternative. Other reports, including the Amnesty International Report of 2003, attest to this claim. The author provides further information to demonstrate the inadequacy of the system of review of asylum claims under the PRRA and the Federal Court. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 As to the author’s allegation that he was not afforded an effective remedy to contest his deportation, the Committee observes that the author has not substantiated how the Canadian authorities’ decisions failed in this case thoroughly and fairly to consider his claim that he would be at risk of violations of articles 6 and 7 if returned to India. In 7. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 8 See Committee’s Views on communication No. 1051/2002, Ahani v. Canada, para 10.5. 9 See general comment No. 20 [47], 1992, para. 9. 10 See Views on communications 706/1996, T. v. Australia, 4 November 1997, paras. 8.1 and 8.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, 28 July 1997, para. 6.9. 19