CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 17 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. 18 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.19 8.4 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”, 20 the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. 21 In this respect, the Committee notes that, under the terms of general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, 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. 8.5 The complainants claim that, in Belarus, they may be tortured as there are substantial grounds to believe that the harassment and alleged torture to which the second complainant was subjected to in the past owing to their political activities and the business activity of the first complainant will continue. In that connection, the Committee takes note that the complainants have provided medical documentation attesting that the second complainant had been subjected to abuse and ill-treatment following her participation in a demonstration in 2006. 8.6 The Committee notes also that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainants were subjected to ill-treatment and/or torture in the past, the question is whether they remain, at present, at risk of torture if returned to Belarus. The Committee notes that, at present, the general human rights situation in Belarus remains a matter of concern in several aspects, in particular concerning the situation of political opponents after the presidential election in December 2010. With regard to incidents of torture and evidence obtained through torture, it recalls that it expressed its concerns in its concluding observations in the context of the consideration of reports submitted by State parties under article 19 of the Convention,22 notably about the numerous and consistent allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of detainees in the State party and the fact that many persons deprived of their liberty were tortured, ill-treated and threatened by law enforcement officials, especially at the moment of apprehension and during pretrial detention, confirming the concerns expressed by a number of international experts and bodies, inter alia, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Human Rights Council (see resolution 17/24), the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Furthermore, the Committee recalls being concerned at reports of several cases of confessions obtained under torture and ill-treatment and the lack of information on any officials who may have been prosecuted and punished for extracting 17 18 19 20 21 22 14 See, inter alia, communication No. 519/2012, T.M. v. Republic of Korea, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 9.3. Ibid. Ibid. General comment No. 1, para. 6. Ibid. See also, communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, para. 7.3. See concluding observations on Belarus, CAT/C/BLR/CO/4, paras. 10 and 18.