CAT/C/47/D/351/2008 9.2 In so doing, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State to which the complainant would be returned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, it must also determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which she would be returned. The Committee reiterates that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not in itself constitute sufficient reason for concluding that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon returning 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 and flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that in particular circumstances a person might not be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention and reasserts that “... 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”,7 but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.8 Furthermore, the Committee observes that considerable weight will be given, in exercising the Committee’s jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned. 9.4 The Committee is aware of the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of the many violations which continue to be reported in the country, including torture, arbitrary arrests and violence against women.9 The Committee recalls, however, that this situation in itself is not a sufficient reason to establish that the complainant is at risk of being subjected to torture on her return to the country; there have to be other reasons for believing that she personally runs such a risk. 9.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the fact that she supposedly passed secret information to the Rwandan rebels when employed as a receptionist at the Congolese Parliament in 2004, added to the fact that she has requested political asylum in Switzerland, would expose her to the risk of ill-treatment if she were to return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee also notes that the complainant has not reported undergoing any ill-treatment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and that her allegations were not deemed to be credible by the national authorities. 7 8 9 GE.12-40233 General comment No. 1, annex IX, para. 6 (see HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9, vol. II). See, inter alia, the Committee’s decisions in Mostafa Dadar v. Canada (communication No. 258/2004), of 23 November 2005; T.A. v. Sweden (communication No. 226/2003), of 6 May 2005; and N.S. v. Switzerland (communication No. 356/2008), of 6 May 2010. See, inter alia, the Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights and the activities of her Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, of 10 January 2011 (A/HRC/16/27); the Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, of 17 January 2011 (S/2011/20); the conclusions of the Committee on the report of the Democratic Republic of the Congo under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT/C/DRC/CO/1/CRP.1 (2006)); the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the report submitted by the State party under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR/C/COD/CO/3 (2006)); and the report on Technical Assistance and Capacitybuilding: Combined report of seven thematic special procedures on technical assistance to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and urgent examination of the situation in the east of the country (A/HRC/10/59). 7