grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3The Committee recalls that in reaching its decision, it must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 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 a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.4In the instant case, the Committee notes the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, as pointed out by the State party, as well as the general failure by the complainant to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to torture. 7.5The Committee further notes the State party’s remarks that the complainant failed to give any information on the conditions of detention in a so-called “ghost house”, and that he failed to describe the cell in which he alleges to have been detained for several weeks. The complainant has not responded to these arguments other than by noting that it is insufficient for the State party to manifest “some doubts” about the credibility of his statements. The Committee also notes that the complainant failed to respond to the doubts voiced by the State party concerning the ease with which he claims to have been able to leave the prison. 7.6The Committee finally notes the State party’s observations on the evolution of the political system in the Sudan over the last few years, in particular the legalization of the political parties, the presidential amnesty of political refugees of 3 June 2000 and the “Motherland Call” under which important members of the opposition have returned to the Sudan. The Committee notes that the complainant has not challenged any of these arguments in his comments. 7.7On the basis of the above, the Committee considers that the information made available by the complainant does not show that substantial grounds exist for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture in the event of his return to the Sudan. 8.The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is of the view that the return of the complainant to the Sudan by the State party would not constitute a violation to article 3 of the Convention by the Netherlands. Notes Complaint No. 201/2002 Submitted by:M.V. (represented by counsel) Alleged victim:M.V. State party:The Netherlands Date of complaint:31 January 2002 The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 2 May 2003, Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 201/2002, submitted to the Committee against Torture by Mr. M.V. under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Having taken into account all information made available to it by the complainant, his counsel and the State party, Adopts the following decision under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention. 1.1The complainant is Mr. M.V., a Turkish national of Kurdish ethnic origin, born on 1 January 1963, currently present in the Netherlands and awaiting deportation to Turkey. He claims that his forcible return to Turkey would constitute a violation by the Netherlands of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. He is represented by counsel. 1.2On 31 January 2002, the Committee forwarded the complaint to the State party for comments and requested, under rule 108 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, not to expel the complainant to Turkey while his complaint was under consideration by the Committee. The State party acceded to this request. The facts as submitted by the complainant 2.1The complainant states that he and his wife are related to Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) leader Abdullah Öçalan, who also comes from his home town, Ömerli, in the Kurdish part of Turkey. The complainant’s grandfather is a nephew of Abdullah Öçalan’s mother. The grandmother of the complainant’s wife is a sister of Abdullah Öçalan’s father. He contends that he belongs to a politically active family and that he himself is politically active.