CAT/C/37/D/277/2005 Page 10 his or her 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. 8.3 The Committee recalls its General Comment No.1 on article 3, which states that the Committee is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, but it must be personal and present. 8.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee has noted the complainant's contention that there is a foreseeable risk that he would be tortured if returned to Iran, on the basis of his alleged previous incarceration and torture and the fact that by participating in a demonstration against the government he did not comply with the condition for his release. The Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that the asylum procedure in Sweden was defective, among others things, as his requests for oral proceedings before the Aliens Appeals Board were rejected even though the law specifies that the Appeals Board should grant such proceedings if this can be presumed to benefit the investigation. The Committee also notes that the complainant has provided medical certificates that support his contention that he was tortured and that the domestic instances did not question that the complainant had been detained, physically abused and tortured, though the State party notes that it is not in a position to either confirm or deny this allegation. 8.5 However, the Committee also notes that while it is probable that the author was subjected to torture, the question is whether he currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Iran. It considers that, even if it were assumed that the complainant was detained and tortured in Iran in the past, it does not automatically follow that, six years after the alleged events occurred, he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Iran in the near future1. 8.6 The Committee notes that the State party has provided extensive reasons, based on expert evidence obtained by its Embassy in Tehran, why it questions the authenticity of the documents presented by the complainant to attest his detention in Iran. It also notes that the complainant’s arguments, and the evidence to support them, have been presented to the State party’s asylum determination bodies. It recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that it is for the complainant to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account of events2, and reiterates that it is not an appellate, quasi-judicial or administrative body. In the present case, the Committee concludes that the State party’s review of the complainant’s case was not deficient in this respect. 1 See S.S.S. v Canada, Communication N° 245/2004, Views of 16 November 2005, 8.4; Haad v Sitzerland, Communication N° 126/1999, Views of 10 May 2000, para. 8.6. 2 See Mehdi Zare v Sweden, Communication N°256/2004, Views of 17 May 2006, para. 9.5; M.A.K.v Germany, Communication N° 214/2002, Views of 14 May 2004, para. 13.5; S.L. v. Sweden, Communication No. 150/1999, Views of 11 May 2001, para.6.4.