CAT/C/66/D/776/2016
including the clear objective of combating sectarian hate speech, and the prosecution of
those accusing others of being infidels. On several occasions, police intervention has
prevented mobs from killing Christians. However, reports indicate that the police have
frequently failed to protect religious minorities from attacks, and that internal displacement
is not an option for Christians accused of blasphemy. 7 Nevertheless, appeal tribunals have
annulled lower court decisions convicting individuals of blasphemy. 8
4.5
While past acts of torture should be considered when evaluating the risk of
refoulement for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention, the complainants do not allege
that they have suffered torture or ill-treatment in the past. They maintain that the male
complainant was beaten by five men in Lahore, but do not claim that the attackers were
State agents or individuals acting with express or tacit State approval.
4.6
While political activities should also be considered when evaluating the risk posed
by refoulement, the complainants do not allege that they have engaged in political activities.
Merely belonging to the Christian minority does not suffice to establish that the
complainants would be subjected to torture upon their return to Pakistan.
4.7
The complainants’ claims during domestic proceedings were inconsistent in several
significant aspects. While the male complainant stated that the threatening telephone calls
began at the end of 2010 and that he had informed his wife about them from the beginning,
the female complainant stated that he had only informed her about the calls in January 2011.
Moreover, while the male complainant stated that during the first telephone call in 2010,
the callers demanded to meet him, the female complainant stated that it was only in
February 2011 that the callers first demanded to meet. The telephone calls played a decisive
role in the complainants’ decision to leave Pakistan. Thus, it is difficult to reconcile their
inconsistent statements on this issue.
4.8
In addition, the complainants provided inconsistent dates as to when the male
complainant became wanted by the police. The male complainant stated that the police
sought him twice at his brother’s home: once before he left for Switzerland, and again
while he was in Switzerland. In contrast, the female complainant stated that these two
incidents both took place while the complainants were in Switzerland, and that they were
informed about them only when they returned to Pakistan. Given that the hunt for the male
complainant is an important factor in their narrative, especially with regard to their return to
Pakistan, it is surprising that their statements on this issue differ. The complainants’ attempt
in their communication to explain this inconsistency is not convincing.
4.9
While the complainants claim to have been informed of the criminal complaint by a
pastor, they do not explain how the pastor could have learned about the complaint, and the
complainant was unable to explain this when asked about it. This indicates that the claim
regarding the police hunt for the male complainant is not credible. Even if it were credible,
according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, article 3 of the Convention does not offer
protection to individuals merely claiming to fear arrest in their country of origin.9
4.10 Furthermore, the complainants’ claims are illogical and incomprehensible.
According to the male complainant, while he was in Switzerland, his brother informed him
that the police were looking for him in Pakistan. Thus, he was aware that the situation in
Pakistan had worsened, and yet chose to return there in September 2011. If the
complainants had felt threatened, one could expect them to have consulted their family
before returning. However, they did not do so. It is also implausible that the male
complainant received threatening telephone calls almost every day, but did not inform his
supervisors about them, and that only one employee of the Swiss Embassy was aware of
these calls.
7
8
9
6
The State party cites, inter alia, United States Department of State, “Country reports on human rights
practices for 2016: Pakistan”, p. 12; and United Kingdom Home Office, “Country information and
guidance – Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts,” p. 9.
The State party cites, inter alia, United States Department of State, “Country reports on human rights
practices for 2016: Pakistan,” pp. 17–18.
The State party cites M.A.H. and F.H. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/51/D/438/2010), para. 7.5.
GE.19-13276