CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 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. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, 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 (para. 6), the Committee recalls 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. 18 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, 19 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided in article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has acknowledged that human rights violations, including disappearances, abuse, torture and killings, in the Russian Federation are still being reported. However, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the human rights situation in the Russian Federation and especially in the Northern Caucasus region, the State party held that the current situation in Chechnya, as described in the above-mentioned reports, does not, in itself, suffice to establish that the general situation in the region is such that an expulsion of the complainants would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainants’ contention that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that the first complainant will be imprisoned and tortured if returned to the Russian Federation. The Committee notes the complainants’ claims that the first complainant’s brother was subjected to severe repeated beatings and killed while in custody in 2003 because he was suspected of being active in the resistance; that the first complainant had been an outspoken critic of the regime and had been under intermittent surveillance by the authorities; that in 2007 he had been arrested and suffered beatings and torture; that after his release he continued to deliver food and supplies to the partisans; that, following explosions in Grozny in 2011, his nephew had been arrested; and that the first complainant was afraid that he would be identified as a suspect, because his nephew would be tortured and would disclose information about his activities to the authorities. 8.6 As to the State party’s position in relation to the assessment of the first complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture, the Committee notes that the State party has accepted that the complainant had been subjected to torture in 2007 and that it has not questioned his account that his brother and nephew had been affiliated with the Chechen resistance and that his brother had died in custody and his nephew had been arrested in 2011. The Committee further notes that the State party has questioned other elements of the complainants’ account, namely that their last place of residence was in Chechnya and the exact details of the events on 7 September 2011, which preceded the departure of the first complainant from Chechnya. The Committee, however, considers that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture and that such inconsistencies as may exist in the complainants’ presentation of the facts are not material and do not raise doubts about the general veracity of their claims.20 The State party also has stated that the summonses 18 19 20 16 See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003; 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. See, for example, communications No. 21/1995, Alan v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 31 January