CAT/C/39/D/297/2006
page 3
1.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 3, of the Convention, the Committee brought the
complaint to the State party’s attention by note verbale dated 14 June 2006. At the same time, the
Committee, pursuant to rule 108, paragraph 1, of its rules of procedure, requested the State party
not to deport the complainant to India while his complaint was being considered.
1.3 On 28 June 2006 the Committee was informed by the complainant and the State party that
the complainant would be removed despite the Committee’s request for a suspension of removal.
1.4 By note verbale of 30 June 2006 the Committee repeated its request to the State party to
suspend removal of the complainant.
1.5 The Committee was informed by counsel that the complainant had been expelled
on 2 July 2006 and that the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) refused to reveal the
destination. The State party confirmed that the complainant had been returned to India and
justified the decision by the fact that he had failed to establish that there was a substantial risk of
torture in his country of origin.
1.6 On 5 July 2006 counsel informed the Committee that the complainant was in a local prison
in Gurdaspur, in Punjab, India, and that, according to police information, he had been beaten and
subjected to ill-treatment by the local authorities. She also said that Amnesty International had
agreed to monitor the complainant’s case.
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1 The complainant states that he and his family were falsely accused of being Sikh militants
and on the basis of that allegation were arrested and tortured several times in India. The
complainant was therefore compelled to leave the country.
2.2 According to the pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) of 26 June 2003, the complainant
had told the Canadian authorities that he was a farmer in Punjab in India, and that his home was
not far from the border with Pakistan, which meant that he and his family had on several
occasions been forced to harbour Sikh militants. In May 1991, February 1993, August 1997,
December 1997 and January 2001, the complainant was arrested by the police on suspicion of
belonging to the Sikh militant movement. He states that whenever an attack took place that was
attributable to the terrorist militants in the region, the police turned up at his home and searched
the house. His brother and his uncle had also been accused of being terrorists and his uncle had
been killed by the police in 1993; his father, too, had been killed in an exchange of fire between
terrorist militants and police in 1995.
2.3 The complainant was in the United Kingdom from July 1995 to February 1997 and applied
for refugee status there. His application was turned down in September 1996. He decided to
return to India, as the Akali Dal party had just been elected to govern the province in
February 1997 and had promised to stop police violence and abuse in Punjab State; on his return
he reportedly joined Akali Dal. He says that he continued to be harassed by the police. His
brother had earlier left India for Canada and been granted refugee status there. This prompted the
complainant to flee the country too, in May 2001.