CAT/C/55/D/571/2013 if returned to Afghanistan and that such danger is personal and present. 13 The State party submits that the complainant has not substantiated that he will face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is returned.14 As the Committee has stated on numerous occasions, 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, as additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 15 4.16 The State party also observes that in its decision of 13 January 2012, the majority of the members of the Appeals Board had found that the complainant had failed to substantiate his grounds for seeking asylum. The majority found that the complainant’s statements about the detentions had been inconsistent and elaborative. It took into account that, inter alia, in the asylum registration reports, the complainant and his spouse had only mentioned a kidnapping committed by a gang of robbers or criminals. Accordingly, the majority of the members of the Board could not accept as a fact that it was the Taliban who had kidnapped the complainant. Therefore, the Board found as a fact, in an overall view, that the complainant’s kidnapping was a criminal act and that the complainant would not be at a real risk of persecution as set out in section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act or of abuse under section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, if he were returned to his country of origin. Consequently, the Board dismissed the complainant’s statement about his grounds for asylum as lacking in credibility. 4.17 The State party also refers to the fact that the complainant gave inconsistent statements about the purpose of his kidnappings. He and his spouse have given inconsistent statements about when and how his spouse learned about the kidnapping and that it was carried out by the Taliban and about the scope of his injuries as a consequence of the abuse. The State party adds that the complainant gave an incoherent statement about his release after the second kidnapping, including as to how the person who helped him to escape from his kidnappers was able to freely enter the place where he was being held. Concerning the complainant’s statement that he does not know how the Taliban found him in Kabul, the State party observes that, according to the background information available, Kabul is a rapidly growing city with more than three million inhabitants and with no central registration of inhabitants. It was therefore deemed unlikely that the Taliban would have been able to find the complainant there, in particular since, as the complainant stated, nobody knew where they were. The Appeals Board could not find as a fact that it was the Taliban who had kidnapped the complainant or that it was the Taliban who had subjected him to abuse during his detention, in particular as the Taliban mainly recruits ethnic Pashtuns and the complainant is an ethnic Tajik. 4.18 The State party submits that the Appeals Board did not find it a fact that the complainant had been kidnapped by the Taliban; it considered the kidnapping an isolated criminal act and therefore did not consider it necessary to request a medical examination of 13 14 15 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 7. See, for example, communications Nos. 270 & 271/2005, E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, paras. 7.2 and 7.3; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada (see note 12), para. 7.1 and 7.2; No. 180/2001, Mr. F.F.Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 30 April 2002, paras. 9 and 10; and No. 143/1999, S.C. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 May 2000, paras. 6.4 and 6.6. See, for example, communications No. 220/2002, David v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2005, para. 8.2; No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.3; Nos. 270 & 271/2005, E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden (see note X), para. 7.2; and No. 286/2006, M.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 17 November 2006, para. 7.3.