CAT/C/55/D/554/2013 regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.5 12.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that the fabrication of criminal charges, abductions and use of torture and ill-treatment are widespread in Ingushetia. It also notes that the complainant provided to the State party’s authorities the details of his abduction and torture by, allegedly, law enforcement officials prior to his departure to Kazakhstan. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s argumentation that the authorities of the State party ignored his claims of previous abduction and torture, as well as his claims of the widespread and well-known practice and use of torture and ill-treatment in the Russian Federation. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that there were no indications of a risk of torture upon the complainant’s review and takes due account of the State party’s statement about the assurances obtained from the Russian authorities that the complainant would not be subjected to torture, violence or inhuman or degrading treatment. 12.6 With regard to the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations, the Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation,6 in which it expressed its concern about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations of the use of torture and ill-treatment of detainees, including as a means to extract confessions, and about serious human rights abuses inflicted by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials or other persons acting in official capacities in the northern Caucasus, including torture and illtreatment, abductions, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings. Therefore, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights and the significant risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in the north Caucasus region of the Russian Federation has been sufficiently established. 12.7 The Committee recalls that, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it will give considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, but that the Committee is not bound by such findings and has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case.7 In the present case, the Committee observes that the complainant claims to have been abducted and tortured in October 2012 and provides documents confirming the fact that a criminal investigation into his disappearance and possible murder was opened in November 2012 by the Prosecutor’s Office of Nazran District. In his appeal of 1 July 2013 to the West Kazakhstan Regional Court, the complainant explicitly mentioned numerous marks of torture on his body, including broken bones, but no examination was ordered to verify the veracity of these torture allegations. The Committee notes that the information provided by the complainant, viewed together with the practice of torture and ill-treatment of detained persons in the Russian Federation, as observed by the Committee in its concluding observations (see para. 12.6 above) sufficiently demonstrated that a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture had existed for the complainant upon extradition to the Russian Federation. In such circumstances, the courts of the State party were obliged to duly assess, under the provisions of article 532 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code and article 3 of the Convention, the possible risk of torture run by the complainant in the event of his extradition. The Committee therefore concludes that the State party’s authorities failed in their duty to carry out a thorough and 5 6 7 See A/53/44 and Corr.1, annex IX, para. 6. See CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, paras. 6 and 13. See A/53/44 and Corr.1, annex IX, and, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010. 9