CAT/C/47/D/327/2007 13.3 The Committee notes that the State party has contested the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the complainant had not established a prima facie violation of article 3 of the Convention because he had not demonstrated that, should he be extradited, he ran a personal risk of being tortured in Mexican prisons, and that diplomatic assurances were sufficient to eliminate any risk. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the Committee should not stand in for national courts if the consideration of the complainant’s allegations by the State party has not been flawed by irregularities. However, the Committee is of the view that the arguments submitted to it raise questions that should be examined on the merits and not with regard to admissibility. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 14.1 The Committee must determine whether the extradition of the complainant to Mexico would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to extradite, expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In evaluating the risk of torture, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he were extradited to Mexico. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon 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 gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.17 As to the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls its general comment and jurisprudence, according to which the burden is generally upon the complainant to present an arguable case, and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 14.2 The Committee notes that the complainant submitted his arguments and supporting evidence to the various State party authorities. In this connection, it also recalls its general comment No. 1 (para. 9), which states that considerable weight will be given to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party; however, the Committee is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. While noting the complainant’s contention that the courts of the State party based their decisions on false assumptions about the worth of the diplomatic assurances provided by Mexico, in particular with regard to the ability of the Mexican authorities to control the country’s security forces and so lessen the risk of torture, the Committee concludes that the information before it does not indicate any obvious errors in the State party’s consideration of the allegations and evidence provided by the complainant. 14.3 In assessing the risk of torture at the time of the complainant’s extradition, the Committee notes that the complainant claimed to have been tortured when he was arrested and threatened with torture in the prison infirmary in Mexico in 1998 and that, in support of his allegations, he provided medical reports confirming that he suffered from psychological 17 12 General comment No. 1, para. 6.