of a consistent pattern of violations of human rights within the meaning of article 3, paragraph 2, lends force to the Committee's belief that substantial grounds exist within the meaning of the paragraph. 12. However, the Committee has to determine whether the person concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be expelled. Consequently, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a particular country does not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for concluding that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture after returning to his country; additional grounds must exist in order to conclude that the person concerned is personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be at risk of being subjected to torture in his specific circumstances. 13. In the present case, therefore, the Committee has to determine whether the expulsion of the petitioner to Iran would have the foreseeable consequence of exposing him to a real and personal risk of being arrested and tortured. 14. The State party has pointed to inconsistencies and contradictions in the petitioner's statements which in its opinion cast doubt on the veracity of his allegations. Even assuming, however, the truth of the petitioner's statements regarding his past experience of detention in Iran, the Committee considers, on the basis of the information provided, that the political activities that the petitioner claims to have carried out prior to and during the demonstrations in February 1999 are not of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that he risks being tortured upon his return. This view is further supported by the fact that the petitioner was not the object of interest by Iranian authorities after he was released from detention in 1994, assuming that this occurred, and until the demonstrations in February 1999. 15. On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the petitioner of the communication has not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 16. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the removal of the petitioner to Iran would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention.