CAT/C/62/D/715/2015 grounds of review listed in section 18.1 (4) of the Canadian Federal Courts Act cover all the substantive ways in which a decision could potentially be reviewed in any context: whether the decision maker acted within its jurisdiction, complied with procedural fairness principles or made a factual or legal error. Thus, in order properly to carry out its responsibilities, the Canadian Federal Court would necessarily need to review an applicant’s claim of being returned to face torture in his or her country of origin. If the Federal Court decides that there was an error of law or an unreasonable finding of fact in the decision under review, it has the authority to set the decision aside and send it back for redetermination by a different decision maker, in accordance with such directions as the Court considers to be appropriate. A judicial stay of removal pending the disposition of a Federal Court application may also be available. The complainant’s assertions that judicial review is ineffective, expensive and unlikely to succeed are entirely unsubstantiated. Mere doubts about the effectiveness of a remedy do not absolve a complainant from seeking to exhaust that remedy and it is generally not within the scope of the Committee’s competence to evaluate the prospects of success of a domestic remedy. 13 Finally, the author has not shown, or even alleged, that he lacked the financial means to pursue judicial review. 4.6 Second, the State party submits that the complainant’s claim that his return to India would be a violation of article 3 of the Convention is manifestly unfounded. The complainant’s allegations of risk have been thoroughly considered by multiple domestic decision makers. His application for refugee status was rejected on the basis that his allegations were not credible. The complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate that he has been subjected to torture in the past, and even if this had been demonstrated, it was not in the recent past, as the author left India in 1994. The complainant has not submitted sufficient evidence that would demonstrate that he is at personal risk of torture should he be returned to India. It is unlikely that any risk that might once have existed for him in his village in the State of Punjab would still exist should he return there. In addition, there is nothing in the communication to suggest that the central authorities in India would have an interest in the complainant such that he would not have an internal flight alternative. 4.7 The State party maintains that, should the Committee consider the complainant’s communication to be admissible, its position would be that the communication is without merit. The complainant has not established that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to India. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his submission dated 8 August 2016, the complainant asks the Committee to consider his communication on its merits and insists that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. He states that, even if granted by the Canadian Federal Court, the judicial review of his application for permanent residence based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds would not have the effect of staying his removal. He agrees that he could have sought judicial review of other decisions with stay of removal but this process is very expensive, ineffective and is unlikely to bring effective relief to the complainant. 5.2 The complainant asserts that he has established a strong prima facie case and that the rejection of pertinent evidence for no reason by the State party amounts to a denial of justice. He insists that medical testimony, photographic evidence and affidavits provided in the submission are clear evidence that he and his family have been subjected to torture. The complainant alleges that Sikhs continue to be victims of State brutality and torture throughout India. 5.3 The complainant rejects a possibility of the internal flight alternative. He states that the Indian security agencies are looking for him and the police considers him to be a terrorist asset. He is a high-profile leader of the prominent Shiromani Akali Dal (Amritsar/Mann) party and is well-known throughout India. Anyone moving from one part 13 Reference is made to M.A. v. Canada, (CAT/C/14/D/22/1995), paras. 3–4; P.S. v. Canada (CAT/C/23/D/86/1997), paras. 5.1–5.3 and 6.3; and R.K. v. Canada (CAT/C/19/D/42/1996), paras. 6.4 and 7.2. 5