CAT/C/35/D/245/2004
Page 5
determination review on 17 April 2002, which was rejected on 18 April 2002 as it had been
made out of time.
2.6 The complainant made submissions under the new pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA)
procedure in October 2003, which was denied on 16 December 2003. He also submitted a
request for a determination based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds on 11
December 2003; according to the complainant, this procedure ha s yet to be decided. Finally,
he applied for leave to seek judicial review of the PRRA refusal on 28 January 2004, which
was dismissed on 2 June 2004, and filed a request for a stay of deportation in the Federal
Court on 18 February 2004. This stay of deportation was denied on 23 February 2004.
2.7
The complainant was scheduled to be deported on 29 February 2004 1 .
The complaint
3.1 The complainant argues that he would be imprisoned, tortured or even killed if he were
returned to India, where human rights violations within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 2,
of the Convention are said to be frequent, particularly against Sikhs. Counsel provides reports
from non- governmental sources containing information to that effect, including an Amnesty
International report of 2003 which concludes that torture and custodial violence continue to
be regularly reported from Punjab.
3.2 Counsel submits a medical certificate dated 21 February 2001 which is said to confirm
that the complainant was brought to Rohit Hospital on 29 April 1999 in an unconscious state,
with bruises on his body, his feet, buttocks and back swollen and his knee dislocated. The
same medical report states that his thigh muscles were crushed and torn, and that the
complainant stayed at the hospital until 30 May 1999, while house visits continued until 30
November 1999. Counsel submits another medical certificate dated 20 March 2001 from a
clinic in Canada, which concludes that the complainant presents symptoms of a mixed anxiodepressive mood disorder and "that there is sufficient objective physical and psychological
evidence that corroborates with the subjective account of torture".
3.3 In support of his application, counsel refers to letters from family members which
support his version of the facts, and medical reports relating to the complainant’s family and
the alleged torture sustained by them. He also refers to affidavits from the Sarpanch (village
elder) of the complainant’s village in India corroborating the complaint and claiming that
police officers informed him that arrest warrants had been issued against the complainant for
involvement with Sikh militants.
3.4 Counsel also submits that the complainant’s deportation to India would subject him to
severe emotional trauma without the possibility of obtaining appropriate medical treatment,
which is said to constitute inhuman and degrading treatment within the terms of article 16 of
the Convention.
Finally, counsel submits that the member of the Immigration and Refugee Board (IRB) who
refused refugee status to the complainant "has a record of refusing every Sikh claim" before
him, and that the PRRA procedure of risk analysis "is one where practically everyone is
1
The State party subsequently informed the Committee that the removal order had not been
enforced.