CAT/C/68/D/568/2013
1.3
At its fifty-eighth session (25 July 2016–12 August 2016), the Committee decided to
postpone its consideration of the communication in order to seek clarifications from the
State party on the availability of domestic remedies.
1.4
On 28 September 2018, the State party informed the Committee that, on 1 August
2018, it had expelled the complainant to India.
Factual background1
2.1
In his initial communication, the complainant submitted that he had been born to a
Sikh family in a village in Jammu, India. In 2000, his paternal uncle came under the
influence of a Sikh terrorist organization called Khalistan Zindabad Force. In March 2000,
the Indian authorities charged his uncle with possession of arms and ammunition, but he
was acquitted by a court in October 2002. The complainant submits that, starting in 2009,
the Indian authorities again took an interest in his uncle. They arrested and tortured him in
2009 and 2010 because of his perceived links with terrorists. On both occasions, his uncle
was released after the payment of a bribe.
2.2
According to the complainant, on 18 November 2010, while he was with his uncle,
the police conducted a raid. His uncle managed to escape from the scene but the
complainant was arrested. He was taken to a police station and tortured there. Police
officers interrogated him on the whereabouts of his uncle and other militants. Police
officers kicked, punched and slapped him, stripped him naked and beat him with belts and
sticks. They applied a roller to his thighs and pulled his legs apart. He was hung upside
down from the ceiling and was beaten severely. Police officers submerged his head in a
water tub and applied electric shocks to his genitals and temples. He fainted twice while
being tortured.
2.3
On 21 November 2010, following the intervention of influential locals and the
payment of a bribe, the complainant was released. He was ordered to regularly report to the
police. On the same day, the complainant was hospitalized for a day and continued
treatment at home until 4 December 2010. A letter from a doctor at the Kanav Bone and
Joint Clinic in Jammu, dated 10 September 2012, states that the complainant was under
medical attention for stress, fever, pain, bruises and swellings all over his body, particularly
on his legs, buttocks and soles of his feet. He was also having breathing problems.
2.4
The complainant submits that, on 22 March 2011, the police raided his home and
arrested him, alleging that he was supporting and sheltering militants. He was again taken
to a police station and tortured in the same way as previously. The complainant states that
he still has the sequelae of torture, such as stiches, burn marks and an amputated right toe.
He was released on 26 March 2011 after the intervention of influential locals and the
payment of a bribe. This time, the complainant was ordered to report to the police every
month and to bring information about persons of interest. He was threatened to be killed if
he failed to comply. The police took his fingerprints, photos and signature on blank pieces
of paper. The complainant was hospitalized between 26 and 28 March 2011 and then
treated at home for 12 days.
2.5
The complainant states that, as a result of police harassment, he was forced to go
into hiding in Punjab for one month and then spent a further three months in New Delhi
while making arrangements for a visa to travel to Canada. He left India on his own passport
and arrived in Canada on 15 August 2011 on a student visa.
2.6
The complainant sought asylum in Canada on 9 September 2011, invoking a risk to
his life and of torture or cruel and unusual treatment or punishment if returned to India. The
Refugee Protection Division of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada rejected his
application on 21 February 2013, on the ground that he had not established that there was a
serious possibility of persecution, nor that it was more likely that he would be personally
subjected to a danger of torture or face a risk to life or a risk of cruel and unusual treatment
or punishment upon return to his country. The Refugee Protection Division noted the
complainant had failed to mention in his personal information form the bi-monthly raids on
his father’s home by the police over a period of years, which he only claimed in his hearing.
Furthermore, the complainant provided inconsistent testimony regarding when his uncle’s
1
2
The factual background has been prepared based on the submissions of the complainant and those of
the State party.