CAT/C/65/D/841/2017 more, that he encouraged the Committee to base its decision on the case file. Accordingly, given that the complainant does not explicitly refer to the wanted notification of 14 December 2016 in support of the claims submitted to the Committee, that he specifies that the notification was submitted as part of a domestic procedure of an extraordinary nature, and that the authorities of the State party did not have the opportunity to assess the notification during the domestic proceeding, the Committee will not be taking it into account in its consideration of the present communication. 6.4 In the absence of any other issues regarding the admissibility of the communication and insofar as the communication raises issues under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee declares it admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture if expelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In assessing this risk, the Committee must, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the State concerned (see general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 43). However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the assessment 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 was expelled. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient grounds 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. Moreover, the Committee notes that, since the Democratic Republic of the Congo is not a party to the Convention, in the event of a violation of the complainant’s Convention rights in that country, he would be deprived of the legal option of recourse to the Committee for protection of any kind.11 7.4 The Committee recalls paragraph 11 of its general comment No. 4, which states that the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination and that the Committee’s practice has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”. The Committee further recalls that the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based (see general comment No. 4, para. 38). The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by the organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free 11 8 See Tahmuresi v. Switzerland (CAT/C/53/D/489/2012), para. 7.7. GE.19-01119