Advance unedited version CAT/C/60/D/701/2015 they were wearing”. The State party further notes that in a written statement dated 20 August 2012, which was before the decision-maker assessing the complainant’s protection visa application, the complainant described the same events referred to in his statutory declaration and in his protection visa interview and alleged that the conduct was perpetrated by “the authorities” or “the government authorities”. The State party further notes that in the Refugee Review Tribunal hearing on 6 December 2012, the complainant gave evidence that the same conduct was inflicted by the Pakistani authorities and that in his request for Ministerial intervention he claimed that he feared harm from the Taliban and Pakistani intelligence authorities. The State party notes that in his complaint before the Committee, the complainant also claims to fear mistreatment by the ISI. The State party observes that the complainant has not previously raised his alleged torture by or fear of harm from the Pakistani Army or ISI at any point during the various domestic processes and submits that it appears that the author is raising new claims of torture by the Pakistani Army or the ISI based on the same evidence he previously provided to domestic decision-makers. The State party contends that this factor raises doubts about his credibility. The State party submits that this new claim does not add any weight to the complainant’s complaint given that the Refugee Review Tribunal determined that there was not a real risk that he would suffer significant harm as a consequence of being returned to Pakistan, even though it accepted his claims of having been abducted and beaten by Pakistani authorities. 4.4 The State party notes that the complainant has also alleged that there is no safe place to which he could relocate if returned to Pakistan. It argues that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Refugee Review Tribunal closely considered the complainant’s profile during the domestic processes and determined that he would not be of interest to the Pakistani authorities and would not suffer harm if returned to Pakistan. 4.5 The State party further notes that the complainant has also provided new evidence regarding his mental health in his complaint before the Committee, but it considers that this does not raise any new and credible claims, and is not relevant to an assessment of the State party’s non-refoulement obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 4.6 The State party notes the complainant’s allegations that there is a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights against people suspected of being associated with the Balochi nationalist movement in Pakistan. The State party argues that extensive country information on Pakistan and the return of failed asylum seekers were carefully considered during the domestic proceedings. The State party refers to the Committee’s views in G.R.B v Sweden5 and notes that the existence of a general risk of violence does not constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country as additional grounds must exist to show the individual concerned would be personally at risk. The State party further submits that according to recent country information there has been no relevant adverse change to the country situation since the complainant’s claims were last assessed to indicate that the State party’s non-refoulement obligations would be engaged in the complainant’s case. 4.7 The State party notes that the complainant has also referred to the Committee’s views in Khan v. Canada. In this connection, it submits that the complainant in Khan v. Canada was an active member of an anti-government, pro-independence organisation who had continued his involvement in this organisation after leaving Pakistan, unlike the complainant in the present complaint who has been comprehensively assessed as being of no interest to the Pakistani authorities and who does not have a profile that would warrant attention if returned to Pakistan. 5 Communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B v Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, paragraph 6.3. 5