CAT/C/59/D/581/2014
The facts as presented by the complainant
2.1
The complainant submits that, on 22 July 2008, he and two other preachers of
Sikhism were stopped and interrogated by the Indian police at the airport in Amritsar, India,
as he returned from Canada. The police officers matched the complainant with a picture of
a terrorist of similar appearance. Although the complainant strongly denied being involved
in terrorism, the police officer struck and humiliated him. The complainant was then taken
to a room and questioned, searched and accused of working for Sikh terrorists and of
travelling abroad to meet with Sikh terrorists and to collect funds to revive terrorism in
India. The complainant denied all accusations. The police took his fingerprints and
photograph and made him provide a signature and informed the police of his district of the
incident. The police also confiscated US$500 from the complainant before releasing him.
2.2
On 1 September 2008, while returning from a Sikh temple in Amritsar, India to his
village by bus, the complainant was stopped by the police and taken with two young people
to the police station. It was alleged that the complainant had attended a meeting with
terrorists at the temple, had worked with them, had promoted terrorism in Punjab and had
hidden the terrorists’ weapons at the temple, in order to earn commission payments from
the terrorists. The complainant denied all the accusations. The complainant was detained
and repeatedly tortured by the police. He was released following the intervention of an
influential person in the community, who paid a bribe to the police. The complainant was
ordered to report to the police every month. He was treated by a doctor.
2.3
On 10 November 2008, the police raided the complainant’s home in India. He was
arrested, transported to the police station and requested to identify militants arrested by the
police whom he did not know. The police told the complainant that the terrorists had stated
that he worked for terrorists and hid weapons at the Sikh temple. The complainant was
tortured while detained for five days. He was released after the intervention of the same
influential person of the community, who paid a bribe to the police. The complainant was
treated by a doctor for his injuries.
2.4
On 4 May 2009, the complainant consulted a lawyer, who advised him to file a court
case against the police. Following discussions with other family members, the head of the
village was elected to file a court case against the police.
2.5
On 5 May 2009, the police raided the complainant’s home and arrested him; he was
detained for seven days, during which time he was tortured by the police. The police took
his fingerprints and photograph and made him sign a blank piece of paper. The complainant
was released after the payment of a bribe by the same influential member of the community.
The complainant was again treated by a doctor. The complainant’s injuries included burns
on various body parts, partial amputation of his middle two fingers, injuries on both
underarms, and a broken wrist and hand. The complainant still bears scars on his body,
including stitches and burn marks. The complainant was hospitalized twice at a hospital in
Amritsar, where he received antibiotics, antiseptics, anti-inflammatory medication,
intravenous fluids, pressure bandages and stitches.
2.6
On 2 June 2009, the complainant, along with two acquaintances, fled to Canada. On
7 October 2009, he claimed refugee status in Montreal, but the claim was rejected on 21
May 2013. On 3 June 2013, the complainant sought leave to seek a judicial review of the
decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada to the Federal Court. On 15
December 2013, the Federal Court refused to grant him leave to appeal.
2.7
The complainant was not offered a pre-removal risk assessment, since less than one
year had elapsed since the denial of his refugee claim. At the time of submission of his
complaint, he was subject to an active removal order. On 19 December 2013, the
complainant went to the Canada Border Services Agency in Montreal. The officer of the
Agency informed him that his application for leave to seek a judicial review from the
2