CAT/C/62/D/715/2015 demonstrations. 8 However, even where sources state that Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar/Mann) members or leaders were subject to such treatment, they do not indicate that it would occur outside of the State of Punjab. 9 In addition, and more generally, although some knowledgeable sources indicate that Sikhs who advocated for and support a separate Sikh state, or Khalistan, continued to face ill-treatment in the State of Punjab,10 it has been reported that there existed no general risk of ill-treatment for Sikhs who were returned to India solely on the basis of ideological support for the establishment of Khalistan.11 4.4 The complainant has not provided any evidence that he is considered to be a highprofile militant or terrorist suspect, or that he is suspected of violent activities. When the complainant was allegedly detained by the police in 1992 and 1993, he was allegedly released upon payments of a bribe and without any charges having been laid. He was also able to have his passport renewed after leaving India. In addition, the complainant’s assertions that, if returned to India, he could face fabricated charges under counterterrorism legislation or the Indian Penal Code, are entirely speculative. There is no objective evidence that the author would face any specific punishment or detention in the State of Punjab, let alone anywhere else in India. The complainant’s submissions and the evidence before the Committee refer only to a generalized and unspecified risk to the complainant on return to India. He has not provided any objective evidence or credible reason to the Committee that would demonstrate that relocation to another part of India other than the State of Punjab is not possible in his case. On the basis of the above information, the State party considers that the interim measures are not warranted in the present communication. 4.5 On 12 May 2016, the State party submits that the communication is inadmissible on two grounds. First, the complainant did not exhaust all available domestic remedies. He failed to seek leave from the Canadian Federal Court to apply for judicial review of three administrative decisions: (1) a decision that, in the period since the rejection of the complainant’s application for refugee status, no new facts had come to light that might affect the pre-removal risk assessment; (2) a decision that there were no grounds to grant permanent residence in Canada based on humanitarian and compassionate factors; and (3) a decision that there was no new evidence of risk or evidence of new risk to justify deferring the author’s removal to India. The State party maintains, contrary to the views expressed by the Committee in some of its cases, that judicial review does not include a review of the merits of the complainant’s claim that he or she would be tortured if returned to the country of origin and that judicial review provides an effective remedy against removal. 12 The State party notes, inter alia, that the function of judicial review is to ensure the legality, the reasonableness and the fairness of the decision-making process and its outcomes. The 8 9 10 11 12 4 See Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Research Directorate, “India: Treatment of members and supporters of the Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar/Mann) party, particularly those who speak publicly about the treatment of Sikhs by the Indian authorities or those who call for the creation of Khalistan (a separate homeland for Sikhs); whether members are monitored by the police for signs of links with terrorism (March 2009-April 2012)” (30 April 2012), part 2.1, available at: http://irbcisr.gc.ca/Eng/ResRec/RirRdi/Pages/index.aspx?doc=453968. See also Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Research Directorate, Treatment of political activists and members of opposition parties in Punjab (2012–April 2015), part 3, which reports a source as indicating that members of non-mainstream political parties, such as radical Sikh groups, faced arrests, detention, and torture even at the time of writing, although the scale of such anti-human rights activities had declined. Ibid. See Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, “Treatment of Sikhs in Punjab (2013-April 2015)”, part 2.3.1, which reports a source as stating that Sikhs who advocated for and supported a separate Sikh state or Khalistan continued to face serious human rights violations; and “Treatment of political activists and members of opposition parties in Punjab (2012-April 2015)”, part 3, which reports a source as indicating that activists who advocated for secession, independence or sovereignty from India faced the harshest treatment. See the United Kingdom, Border Agency, “Operational Guidance Note: India” (May 2013), para. 3.9.13. Reference is made to Singh v. Canada (CAT/C/46/D/319/2007), para. 8.8; and W.G.D. v. Canada (CAT/C/53/D/520/2021), para. 7.3.