CAT/C/59/D/582/2014 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to India would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) 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. 9.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to India. In assessing this 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. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such 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 return; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 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. 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 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable,15 the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 16 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by the organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 17 9.5 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that Indian police and security agencies are searching for him for allegedly supporting Sikh terrorists in Punjab and for trying to obtain justice against the local police. The Committee observes that the Immigration and Refugee Board examined the risks alleged by the complainant but concluded that he lacked credibility on certain key issues and that his profile was not of such a nature that he would be wanted by the national Indian authorities in the light of his lack of political or partisan engagement that could link him to a militant or terrorist group, the fact that he was released twice after paying a bribe to the police, the lack of criminal charges or an arrest warrant against him and the fact that he used his own passport to leave the country despite the strict border controls in place. The Committee notes that the allegations made by the complainant do not show that the Immigration and Refugee Board acted arbitrarily in examining his claims. 9.6 With regard to the existence of an internal flight alternative, the Committee considers that the deportation of a person or a victim of torture to an area of a State where 14 15 16 17 8 See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. The State party cites United Kingdom, Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: India (May 2013). Ibid. See also communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014, para. 8.3.