CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 required for purposes of admissibility. According to the State party, the present communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 5 Should the Committee declare it admissible, the issue before the Committee would be whether the forced return of the complainants to Belarus would violate the obligation of Sweden 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. 4.4 The State party notes that, when determining whether the forced return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in that country. However, as the Committee has repeatedly emphasized, the aim of such a determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country of return. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture there. For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 6 4.5 In this connection, the State party notes that, when determining whether the forced return of the complainants to Belarus would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human rights situation in Belarus and, in particular, (b) the personal risk of the complainants being subjected to torture there. 4.6 Furthermore, the State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof in cases like the present one rests with the complainants, who must present an arguable case establishing that they run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.7 In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present.8 4.7 Regarding the general human rights situation in Belarus, the State party notes that, given that Belarus is a party to the Convention, as well as party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it assumes that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in that country, including the situation for political opponents after the presidential election in December 2010. In this regard, the State party therefore finds it sufficient to refer to the information regarding the human rights situation in Belarus, which can be found in recent reports, such as one by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden9 and the United States Department of State country report on human rights practices for 2012 on Belarus.10 5 6 7 8 9 6 The State party refers to communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, decision of 2 May 2003, para. 6.2. The State party refers to communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3, and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. See e.g., communications No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13, and No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, e.g., the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, paras. 5-7. Available, in Swedish only, from www.manskligarattigheter.se/sv/manskliga-rattigheter-i-varlden/ud-