CAT/C/49/D/435/2010 Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forcible return of the complainant to the United Republic of Tanzania would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (refouler) a person to another State 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 his country of origin. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 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. 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. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3, 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”,12 the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.13 While under the terms of its general comment the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, it recalls that it is not a judicial or appellate body, and that it must give considerable weight to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned.14 7.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party’s migration authorities have taken into account the fact that the human rights record of the United Republic of Tanzania was not up to the highest standards, but still moderate in terms of press freedom and the right to freedom of expression. However, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Tanzania concerning press freedom and the right for freedom of expression, the State party’s authorities and courts have established that the situation in that country does not in itself suffice to establish that the complainant’s forced return there would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 7.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he was detained and tortured between 30 April 2002 and the end of June 2002. It also notes the State party’s doubts 12 13 14 General comment No. 1, para. 6. Ibid., para. 5. See also communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para.7.3. 9