CAT/C/54/D/476/2011 danger is insufficient grounds to conclude that the person is in danger of being subjected to torture. 9 4.4 The State party recalls that the purpose of determining whether there is a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is to establish whether the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture. 10 It follows that the existence of such a pattern of violations does not in itself constitute a sufficient basis for concluding that the individual concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return. It is also necessary that the risk is foreseeable, real and personal 11 and that it is assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 12 In this regard, the State party asserts that the Gambia is not in a situation of pervasive violence. 4.5 The State party maintains that the complainant never made any claim, either to the Swiss authorities or to the Committee, of having been tortured or ill -treated in the past in the Gambia. He simply claims that he is wanted by the Gambian authorities and that because of the nature of the acts of which he is accused, i.e. his involuntary involvement in an attempted coup in March 2006, he is in danger of being tortured. According to the State party, all these considerations have already been thoroughly analysed by the Swiss authorities. After a scientific analysis, the authorities concluded that the documents submitted by the complainant were either falsified or of uncerta in origin and probably forged, 13 and, moreover, it had not been established that the complainant was wanted in his country of origin for the acts in question. 4.6 The State party notes that the complainant has made no claim of having been politically active either in his country of origin or in Switzerland. 4.7 According to the State party, the complainant has failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the factual inconsistencies and contradictions in his claims that had been detected by the Swiss authorities, which undermines his credibility. The State party considers that the complainant has failed to prove that he was involved in the events in question and that, as noted by the authorities, his alleged conduct during the events was illogical and ran counter to their general experience. The State party adds in this regard that the complainant has provided contradictory information about his involvement in the attempted coup, stating first that he had not himself cut the lines of communication, then that he had cut the lines under orders, and finally that he had cut them on the direct order of the then Chief of the Armed Forces, who allegedly assisted him with the task. 14 Moreover, according to the State party, the complainant is unable to explain what his job of “signalling” at the presidential palace entailed and is likewise unable to describe the duties that he was supposed to perform. The State party concludes that all these considerations raise doubts as to the veracity of the __________________ 9 10 11 12 13 14 6/8 The State party cites communications No. 57/1996, P.Q.L. v. Canada, Views adopted on 17 November 1997, para. 10.5; and No. 221/2002, M.M.K. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on 3 May 2005, para. 8.7. The State party cites communication No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2. The State party cites communications No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, para. 10.5, and No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, paras. 6.3 and 6.5 et seq. The State party cites general comment No. 1 (1997), in particular, para. 6. The State party refers to the identity card and military identification card as if they are proven forgeries. It highlights the uncertain origin of the document supposedly drafted by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the arrest warrant (AWOL), which are documents that are easy to falsify and easy to obtain in the Gambia and therefore have no evidentiary value for the State party. The complainant has not given an explanation for the contradictions n oticed by the Swiss authorities during the asylum proceedings. GE.15-11116