CAT/C/61/D/747/2016 Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 10.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture should he be extradited to Turkey. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 14 It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 10.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present. The Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk.15 The Committee further recalls that, as set out in its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, 16 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, to freely assess the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 10.4 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he will be tortured if extradited to Turkey because he was tortured in the past while in detention on murder charges and that his 1989 conviction was based on testimonies obtained under duress; that the extradition request is politically motivated due to his Kurdish ethnicity and his and his family’s active support to PKK; that his political affiliation is known to the Turkish authorities; that the Turkish authorities only requested his extradition more than 20 years after his conviction although they were aware of his whereabouts in 1992; and that three of his relatives in Turkey have been prosecuted for having supported PKK; and that his family members were questioned about his whereabouts while visiting Turkey. The Committee also notes the complainant’s claim that the risk of torture would increase because he escaped from prison in Turkey and has a Christian cross and “Fuck Erdogan” tattoos. The Committee further notes that the complainant has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and that he has attempted to commit suicide while in detention pending extradition. It notes that according to his 2015 psychiatric report, his extradition would almost certainly lead to retraumatization. 10.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observation that its extradition authorities found that the complainant lacked credibility. In this context, the State party argues that the medical reports from the time of his conviction do not mention torture marks; that the psychiatric reports showing causality between his torture and post-traumatic stress disorder were based mainly on the complainant’s own statements; that the complainant did 14 15 16 12 See, inter alia, communication No. 470/2011, X. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 24 November 2014, para. 7.2. See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003; and No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3.