resulting from his deportation to Sri Lanka would not amount to torture within the meaning of article 3, read in conjunction with article 1 of the Convention, which could be attributed to the State party itself. 6.9The Committee therefore is of the view that the complainant has not adduced sufficient grounds which would lead the Committee to conclude that he would run a substantial, present and personal risk of torture if returned to Sri Lanka. 7.The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention, concludes that the complainant’s removal to Sri Lanka by the State party would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] Notes Communication No. 183/2001 Submitted by:B.S.S.(represented by counsel, Mr. Stewart Istvanffy) Alleged victim:B.S.S. State party:Canada Date of complaint:7 March 2001 The Committee against Torture, established under Article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 12 May 2004, Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 183/2001, submitted to the Committee against Torture by Mr. B.S.S. under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Having taken into account all information made available to it by the author of the complaint, his counsel and the State party, Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention. 1.1The complainant is Mr. B.S.S., an Indian national, born in 1958, currently residing in Québec, Canada and awaiting deportation to India. He claims that his forcible return to India would constitute a violation by Canada of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He is represented by counsel. 1.2On 4 May 2001, the Committee forwarded the complaint to the State party for comments and requested, under rule 108, paragraph 1, of the Committee’s rules of procedure, not to expel the complainant to India while his complaint was under consideration by the Committee. On 19 February 2004, the State party requested the Committee to withdraw its request for interim measures, pursuant to rule 108, paragraph 7, of the Committee’s rules of procedure or, alternatively, to make a final determination on the complaint at its earliest convenience. By letter of 2 March 2004, counsel asked the Committee to maintain its request for interim measures, pending a final decision on the complaint. These requests became moot on 12 May 2004, when the Committee adopted its Views on the complaint. 1.3On 31 March 2003, the complainant requested the Committee to suspend the consideration of his complaint, pending the outcome of legal proceedings under a new Pre Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA) procedure, but to maintain its request under rule 108, paragraph 1, of its rules of procedure. On 25 April 2003, the Committee informed the complainant and the State party that it had decided to suspend consideration of the complaint, as well as its request to the State party not to expel the complainant, insofar and as long as his removal would be automatically stayed under section 162 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. The facts as submitted by the complainant 2.1The complainant is from the Punjab province in India. His religion is Sikh. His wife and three children continue to live in the Punjab. 2.2According to an “investigation report” dated 12 March 1993 by Mr. S.S., a human rights lawyer at Patiala (Punjab), which substantially relies on the testimony of the complainant’s father, his daughter and other villagers, two armed men came to the home of the complainant’s family in April 1991 asking the complainant for food while pointing a gun at him. They remained for half an hour. Later that night, the police arrested the complainant accusing him of harbouring terrorists. He was allegedly detained in a special torture cell where he was interrogated and beaten by the police. He was released after two days when his father paid a bribe. 2.3Pursuant to the same report, the complainant was arrested a second time in September 1991 after six family members of a police officer had been killed in a nearby village. The complainant was detained in an unknown place where he was allegedly subjected to torture by the police again. He was released at the intervention of a local politician and subsequently went to Jaipur (Rajasthan) in order to hide from the Punjab police. The police reportedly continued to harass his family, and on one occasion arrested the complainant’s brother. When the police started to investigate his whereabouts in Jaipur, the complainant decided to leave the country following his father’s advice. 2.4On 1 September 1992, the complainant left India for Brazil, then travelled to Mexico, and entered the United States on 22