CAT/C/44/D/322/2007 which were presented for the first time in their submissions of 11-12 June 2007, as well as the complainants’ failure to response to the State party’s observations of 8 October 2008 and 19 May 2009. 9.3 Finally, the State party makes a procedural request. It submits that according to chapter 12, section 22, of the 2005 Aliens Act, an expulsion order which has not been issued by a general court expires four years after the order becomes final and nonappealable. This is applicable with respect to expulsion orders not issued on account of a criminal offence, as in the present case. The decision on expulsion regarding the complainants became final and non-appealable on 20 December 2006, when the Aliens Appeals Board rejected their appeal against the Migration Boards decision. The expulsion decision will thus become statue-barred on 20 December 2010. In light of this, and given that this case has already been before the Committee, the State party specifically requests the Committee to decide upon this complaint at its upcoming 44th session in April-May 2010. It also points out that despite being represented by counsel, the complainants have only responded briefly to the State party’s observations, in contrast to its own lengthy submissions. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainants’ removal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainants run a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which they would be returned. 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. 9.4 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. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. The risk need not be highly probable, but it must be foreseeable, real and personal, and present, as confirmed by the Committee in its previous decisions. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The Committee recalls that, while it gives considerable weight to the findings of fact of the State party's bodies, it is entitled to freely assess the facts of each case, taking into account the circumstances. 12