CAT/C/66/D/829/2017 inconsistencies in his testimony. This is a question of a fundamental safeguard for the complainant, who claims to have been the victim of sexual torture and repeated rapes. 6. As for the assessment of the general situation in the country to which the complainant would be returned, although the State party considers that Benin is a stable parliamentary democracy that is free from persecution and that, if acts of torture or illtreatment are perpetrated there, such acts can be described as occasional, this assessment does not exclude the possibility of persecution occurring in specific circumstances, as the Committee has already pointed out. 5 Likewise, 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. 6 7. The purpose of the absolute principle of non-refoulement is to prevent irreparable harm, not to redress such harm once it has occurred. 7 8. The Committee should have applied the principle of the benefit of the doubt, as a preventive measure against irreparable harm. 8 Given the specific circumstances of the present complaint, the Committee should have concluded that the return of the complainant to Benin would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 5 6 7 8 10 CAT/C/BEN/CO/3, paras. 34–35. Kalinichenko v. Morocco, para. 15.3. Alan v. Switzerland, para. 11.5. General comment No. 4, para. 51. GE.19-12653