CAT/C/45/D/373/2009 Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.3 7.4. The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3 in which it states, inter alia, that the risk of torture “must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable”.4 7.5. The Committee notes that the State party does not dispute the first-named complainant’s involvement with the PKK, but rather argues that his involvement was at a low level. It notes that while the State party denies that he would be of much interest to the Turkish authorities now, it admits, as did the Migration Board itself, that if he is pursued by the Turkish authorities, there is a risk that he will be arrested, detained pending trial and sentenced to a long term of imprisonment (paras.4.11 and 4.12). It also notes that the complainants have provided information on a criminal case initiated against the first-named complainant, number 1999/190 (para. 5.2), which, remains uncontested by the State party. Thus, in the Committee’s view sufficient information has been provided to indicate that the first-named complainant is likely to be arrested if returned to Turkey. 7.6. The Committee observes that, according to various sources the there are serious allegations that the security and police forces continue to use torture, in particular during questioning and in detention centers despite the government’s policy of zero tolerance of torture. The Committee also notes that according to the State Party’s own submission in 2007 (see para. 4.8 above) the number of reports of ill-treatment has increased. More than one of the reports submitted by the State party describe that despite the legislative measures taken by the Turkish Government perpetrators often enjoy impunity, and question the effectiveness of the reform. Many of the recent reports quoted by the State party also indicate that there are an increasing number of reports of ill-treatment and torture committed by members of the security and police forces outside official premises and thus more difficult to detect and document. The Committee also takes note of the statement from the report by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs quoted by the State party that members of the PKK should be considered a specific target group for individual civil servants who violate the prohibition on using torture. It also notes that according to the Diyabakir Branch of Human Rights Association, those persons, who defected from PKK are subjected to enforced confessions to reveal the names of their former comrades. 7.7. In conclusion, the Committee notes that the complainant was a member of the PKK for 14 years; and that there are strong indications that he is wanted in Turkey, to be tried under anti-terrorist laws and thus is likely to be arrested upon arrival and subjected to enforced confessions. In light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the complainants have provided sufficient evidence to show that the first-named complainant personally runs a real and foreseeable risk of being subjected to torture were he to be returned to his country of origin. 7.8 As the case of the second-named complainant is dependent upon the case of the first, the Committee does not find it necessary to consider the case of the former, a minor child of the first-named complainant, separately. 7.9. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 3 4 8 MAK v. Germany, 214/2002. Views adopted 5 May 2004. A/53/44, annex IX, para.6