CCPR/C/125/D/2238/2013
1.2
On 25 March 2013, pursuant to rule 92 of its rules of procedure, the Committee,
acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures,
requested the State party to refrain from returning N.P.S.S. to India while his
communication was pending before the Committee and to provide information about the
travel documents of M.K. On 28 May 2013, the State party requested that the interim
measures be lifted and informed the Committee that it had issued valid travel documents for
M.K. (see para. 4.5 below). On 21 June 2013, the Special Rapporteur decided to deny the
request to lift the interim measures for N.P.S.S. and extend such measures to M.K. The
authors are currently in Canada.
The facts as presented by the authors
2.1
On 2 August 2000, Punjab Police officers arrived at the home of N.P.S.S. in Punjab
to request information about his cousin, who was suspected of being “a militant”. They
arrested, interrogated and tortured N.P.S.S. Two days later, he was released.
2.2
In January 2001, M.K. married G.S., who was residing primarily in Germany at the
time. M.K. claims to have been treated as a slave and a domestic servant by her in-laws
during her marriage and to have been physically and sexually abused by her husband when
he was in India. When she could no longer accept the abuse she was suffering, she filed for
divorce, but her husband and in-laws did not appear in court. They perceived it as an attack
on their honour. The divorce was pronounced without the contestation of the first husband
of M.K., G.S. In January 2007, the authors were married, with the support of their families. 2
2.3
The wedding of the authors was badly received by G.S.’s family, who had close ties
with governmental and police officials in India. More particularly, the uncle of G.S. was
himself a police officer and his father was a member of the Congress Party. G.S.
communicated from Germany with N.P.S.S. and threatened that if he did not leave M.K., he
would kill him. Moreover, the uncle and the father of G.S. arrived at the home of the
authors in Punjab, accompanied by the police, to force them to divorce. Nevertheless, the
authors decided to remain together.
2.4
On 9 November 2007, the Punjab Police went back to the home of the authors and
arrested them. N.P.S.S. was interrogated and tortured at the police station. M.K. was
interrogated, tortured and raped separately and was raped again by a police inspector in
front of N.P.S.S. The father of G.S. told N.P.S.S. that his wife would not be able to live in
their society with the same dignity and respect. To protect his wife, N.P.S.S. promised to
divorce her. After the intervention of many prominent people and the payment of a large
bribe, on 12 November 2007, the authors were released. They were fingerprinted and
forced to sign blank papers, and N.P.S.S. was forced to report to the police station every
month.
2.5
Owing to the above, the authors fled from Punjab to Delhi. However, they quickly
realized that the police were still pursuing them. From December 2007 to June 2008, the
authors resided in Delhi at a friend’s house. They always stayed indoors, given that they
were afraid of going out. They eventually decided to leave India because of the pressure
against them and their family.
2.6
On June 2008, after transiting in Singapore and Hong Kong, China, they entered
Canada on visitor’s visas. Two weeks after their arrival, they filed a refugee claim. In
October 2010, they had a hearing at the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. On 11
April 2011, their claim was denied on the basis of an available internal flight alternative
within India. They applied for a judicial review of the latter decision. In August 2011, their
application for judicial review was denied.
2.7
Given that their refugee claim was denied, the authors filed both a pre-removal risk
assessment application and an application for permanent resident status on humanitarian
and compassionate grounds to allow them to stay in Canada. On 5 April 2012, both
applications were denied, by two separate decisions. All the new evidence of risk was
rejected on the basis that they had an available internal flight alternative and because of
2
2
The authors provide affidavits of their parents confirming their support.