CAT/C/67/D/775/2016 Consequently, the Committee finds no obstacle to admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel, return (“refouler”) or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that that person would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 In the present case, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 11 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 12 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. 13 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. 14 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the nonrefoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee recalls that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.15 Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant; (c) arrest without guarantee of a fair treatment and trial; (d) previous torture; (e) incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; (f) clandestine escape from the country of origin following threats of torture; (g) religious affiliation; and (h) violations of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 16 8.5 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof is on the complainant, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit circumstantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. 17 However, when complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, such as when they have demonstrated that they have no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to their allegation of torture or have been deprived of their liberty, the burden of proof is reversed, and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based.18 The Committee further recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 See, inter alia, E.T. v. the Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.3. E.T. v. the Netherlands, para. 7.3. Y.G. v. Switzerland, (CAT/C/65/D/822/2017), para. 7.2. Ibid. General comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. See, inter alia, E.T. v. the Netherlands, para. 7.5. General comment No. 4 (2017), para. 38.