CAT/C/21/D/66/1997 page 8 prior to the decision to execute the removal order conforms with the requirements of international law, in ensuring that persons not be sent back to situations where there are substantial risks of torture. 5.6 The author has asserted that he always was remorseful for any was caused during the hijacking and denies that he himself used any in the attack. He submits that he voluntarily surrendered and that the passengers were subjected to any harm other than minor injuries they quickly recovered. harm that violence none of from which 5.7 Counsel insists that there is a substantial risk that the author would be exposed to torture based upon the deplorable human rights record of the Indian Government, his high profile as someone who is known to have been involved in an organization which has been strongly supportive of an independent Sikh State, the fact that he engaged in the hijacking as a means of protest and the fact that other high profile persons like the author have been detained and extrajudicially killed by the Indian authorities. The mere fact that the Central Bureau of Investigation affirms that they are not looking for him does not provide any assurance to the author that he would be safe upon return. Many innocent persons have been arrested and killed extrajudicially based upon suspicion of past connection to the militant movement. 5.8 Finally, it is not possible for the Government of India to request the extradition of the author, given that he was tried and convicted of the offence in Pakistan and that under the Indian Constitution he cannot be tried twice for the same offence. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claim in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 6.2 Article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention precludes the Committee from considering any communication, unless it has been ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. In the instant case the Committee notes that the author was granted temporary stay and that the Federal Court - Trial Division quashed the decision of the immigration officer to execute the removal order. The Committee also notes that an appeal filed by the Minister of Immigration against that decision is still pending before the Federal Court of Appeal. If not successful the matter would be referred back to the expulsions officer and the possibility of an application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds would be open to the author. There is nothing to indicate that the procedures still pending cannot bring effective relief to the author. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that the communication is at present inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. In the circumstances the Committee does not consider it necessary to deal with other issues raised by the State party and the author. That will be done, if required, at a later stage.