CAT/C/58/D/600/2014 where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. 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. 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. 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. 8 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable (para. 6), the burden of proof generally falls upon the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 9 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, however, it is not bound by such findings but rather has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, to freely assess the facts based on the full set of circumstances in every case. 10 7.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that his forcible removal to Sri Lanka would amount to a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as he would be at risk of being detained and interrogated upon arrival at the airport. If, at that time or at any moment thereafter, it should come to light that he was an eyewitness to a crime committed by Sri Lanka Army soldiers, he may even be summoned as a witness in any inquiry regarding that crime or at court; he would then be targeted by other Sri Lanka Army personnel and would not be able to rely on police protection. Furthermore, he claims that, as a young Tamil male originating from the area previously controlled by LTTE and who had left Sri Lanka illegally and failed in his asylum application, he would be imputed with strong LTTE links. He also claims that although he clarified the discrepancies of his accounts before the State party’s authorities and explained why it was not possible to provide any evidence to corroborate his claims, other than the death certificate of the woman whose murder he had witnessed, the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Refugee Review Tribunal questioned his credibility and arbitrarily dismissed his request for a 8 9 10 10 See, for example, communications No. 467/2011, Y.B.F., S.A.Q. and Y.Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 31 May 2013, para. 7.2; No. 392/2009, R.S.M. v. Canada, decision adopted on 24 May 2013, para. 7.3; and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. See, for example, A.R. v. Netherlands, para. 7.3; also communications No. 285/2006. A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.4; No. 343/2008, Kalonzo v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 9.3; and No. 414/2010, N.T.W. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 16 May 2012, para. 7.3. See, for example, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010.