CAT/C/62/D/702/2015
The facts as presented by the complainants
2.1
S.S. (the first complainant) was born on 3 July 1974 in Punjab, India. He married in
March 1992 and the couple had two children: P.S. (the second complainant), born on 10
January 1993 in Punjab, and a daughter, Sukhneet Kaur.1 The complainants are both Sikh.
In their village, the Sikh temple is very close to their home and during the militancy in
Punjab,2 their area suffered raids and police brutality, as some Sikh terrorists originated
from that area.3
2.2
S.S. made his living farming and also worked in Dubai as a truck driver. During his
time in Dubai, he met another Sikh, Gurmukh Singh, who was also on a work visa there.
Gurmukh was an “amritdhari”4 Sikh, and had a good knowledge of Sikhism. He told the
complainant that he had been a priest in Punjab.5 The two men became friends, and the
complainant helped Gurmukh Singh obtain work as a priest in the Sikh temple in Dubai. In
October 2009, the first complainant’s contract in Dubai ended and he went back to India.
He was the secretary of the Sikh temple in his village, Gurdawara. In September 2010,
Gurmukh Singh went to India as his work permit in Dubai had not been renewed. The
complainant appointed him as a priest in the village temple.
2.3
On 24 December 2010, the police raided the village looking for Gurmukh Singh,
who managed to escape. They arrested the first complainant. He was taken to the police
station, questioned about Gurmukh Singh’s whereabouts and tortured. He was slapped,
punched and kicked until he fainted; he was hung upside down from the ceiling by a rope;
his thighs were rolled over with a roller; he was beaten on his buttocks with leather belts; he
was beaten on the soles of his feet and his legs were pulled apart; and he was kicked in the
genitals. The complainant also claims that a police officer struck his abdomen with an iron
bar and that the resulting wound became infected and had to be operated on. He also states
that he had many external and internal wounds as a result of his torture. During his
detention, the police falsely alleged that Gurmukh Singh was a terrorist who had gone to
Dubai to train and had come back to recruit new militants. They claimed that the
complainant was acting with him and that they had travelled from Pakistan to Dubai to
meet Sikh militants there. The village committee and village council helped the
complainant’s family and the police were bribed to secure his release. He was released on
27 December 2010 on the condition that he report to the police any information regarding
Gurmukh Singh’s whereabouts. The complainant states that he was taken by ambulance to
Satnam hospital in Nurmahal on the same day for treatment of the injuries resulting from
the torture. 6 He states that he was treated for severe body pain, contusions, bruising,
swelling, tenderness on the soles of the feet, lash marks, depression and other internal and
external injuries.7
2.4
The complainant claims that after that day, his home and the temple were raided
regularly and he was regularly questioned about Gurmukh Singh and other militants’
whereabouts. He bribed the police to be left alone, but they continued to harass him. On 4
May 2011, the police arrested the complainant, again accusing him of hiding militants in
the temple. The complainant claims that he was asked about Gurmukh Singh’s whereabouts
and that he was tortured again. He also claims that the police took photographs of him, took
his fingerprints and forced him to sign blank documents. He was released on 8 May. He
was then taken to the hospital, where he was treated for the same injuries as previously. 8
Once released, the complainant learned that two volunteers in the temple had also been
arrested and that the police were questioning several people, including members of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2
About whom no further information is provided.
Dates are not provided.
The complainant gives as an example the name of a known Sikh terrorist, “Kulbeera Barapindiya”.
A Sikh who has made certain baptismal vows.
No further information is given.
The complainant provides a letter with Satnam hospital letterhead which states that he was treated on
both this and a later date, and which confirms the reported injuries. See page 91 of the original
submission.
Further details of additional internal and external injuries are not provided.
The complainant provides a medical certificate dated 19 December 2012 covering this and the
previous incident. See page 91 of the initial submission.