CAT/C/54/D/538/2013 9.2 The Committee must determine whether the extradition of the complainant to Uzbekistan constitutes a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee takes a decision on the question in the light of the information, which the authorities of the State party had or should have had at the time of the extradition. Subsequent events are useful for assessing the information that the State party actually had or should have had at the time of extradition. 9.3 In assessing whether the extradition of the complainant to Uzbekistan constitutes a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The Committee reiterates 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. Similarly, 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. 9.4 The Committee recalls that, in its general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, it noted that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable”, but it must be personal and present (para. 6). In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal . 9.5 The Committee notes counsel’s claim that torture and ill-treatment, in particular of extradited asylum seekers, seems systematic in Uzbekistan. It also notes the detailed allegations that, in the past, prior to his departure to Kazakhstan, the complainant was exposed to persecution on religious grounds and ill-treatment by the Uzbek authorities. The Committee takes note, next, of counsel’s argumentation that the proceedings in the State party leading to the extradition of the complainant were not fair, as no interpreter was provided; the courts did not consider in substance the complainant’s allegations of the risk of torture upon extradition or review the decision of the Committee on Migration to turn down his application for asylum. It further notes the State party’s assertion that the complainant and his lawyer were notified about the right to request an interpreter, but did not do so; that UNHCR, although initially disagreeing with the outcome of the asylum proceedings, left it to the State party to decide on the complainant’s extradition. The State party also expressed its view that the extradition proceedings were in accordance with both the domestic and international norms and that the courts, which considered the complainant’s appeals against the extradition decision, were not competent to review the decision of the Committee on Migration to turn down his asylum request. The Committee takes due account of the State party’s statement about the assurances obtained from the Uzbek authorities that the complainant would not be persecuted for political motives, or for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion; that he would not be subjected to torture, violence or inhuman or degrading treatment. It also notes the information submitted by counsel that, following his extradition to Uzbekistan, the complainant has been sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment there, with pressure and ill-treatment allegedly used during the criminal proceedings, resulting in the complainant’s forced confession of crimes and his silence during the trial. The Committee finally notes the State party’s argument that the criminal investigation corresponded to the charges against the complainant specified in the request for his extradition, and that the sentence was not aimed at subjecting him to repression or torture. 8