CAT/C/57/D/583/2014 of those arguments should be addressed. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture, should he be returned to India. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 11 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. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (refoulement and communications), according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 12 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned,13 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 7.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s contention that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he will be tortured and possibly killed if returned to India because the authorities in Punjab suspect him of helping militants and planning with his cousin M. to assassinate leaders. The Committee notes that the complainant has not provided sufficient detailed information to substantiate these claims. For instance, he has not indicated the specific activities in which the police suspected that he was involved nor the persons with whom he was suspected of collaborating in carrying out these activities. The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that its domestic authorities found that the complainant lacked credibility because, inter alia, he prepared for three years to leave India and his actions evinced an intention to pursue studies in Canada: he obtained a passport in 2008; he took various English courses in 2009; he applied for a Canadian student visa after enrolling in a 11 12 13 GE.16-09779 See, inter alia, communication No. 470/2011, X. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 24 November 2014, para. 7.2. See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003 and No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 7