CAT/C/54/D/538/2013 9.6 With regard to the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations, the Committee recalls its concluding observations on the third periodic report of Uzbekistan, in which it expressed its concern about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations of the routine use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by law enforcement and investigative officials or with their instigation or consent, and that persons who sought refuge abroad and were returned to the country had been kept in detention at unknown places and possibly subjected to breaches of the Convention (see CAT/C/UZB/CO/3, paras. 6 and 9). 9.7 The Committee notes that the complainant is reportedly practising his religion outside of official Uzbek institutions. It also notes that the complainant was extradited pursuant to a request from Uzbekistan accusing him of serious crimes, including religious extremism and attempts to overthrow the constitutional order, and on the basis of the State party’s assessment that he could pose a threat to the State party’s interests and security. The Committee reiterates its concern, expressed in its concluding observations on the second periodic report of Kazakhstan, about forcible returns to Uzbekistan in the name of regional security, including in the context of the fight against terrorism, and the unknown conditions, treatment and whereabouts of persons returned (see CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 15). It also notes that the non-refoulement principle in article 3 of the Convention is absolute and a possible security risk does not absolve the State party from honouring its obligation to refrain from expelling or returning (“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.5 9.8 In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that, in its own concluding observations, as well as in the light of the information presented to it in the present case, the pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights and the significant risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Uzbekistan, in particular for individuals practising their faith outside of the official framework, has been sufficiently established. In this context, it observes that the complainant argued that he was subjected to religious persecution, including detention and torture, before his departure to Kazakhstan. 9.9 The Committee recalls that, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it will give considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, but that the Committee is not bound by such findings and has the power, provided under article 22 (4) of the Convention, to carry out a free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 6 In the present case, the Committee observes that the complainant, who has been previously prosecuted in Uzbekistan for his religious beliefs, and who was charged with the creation of an extremist organization and terrorism in Uzbekistan and extradited by the State party on the basis of those charges, has sufficiently demonstrated that a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture existed for him upon return to Uzbekistan. In such circumstances, the courts of the State party were obliged to duly assess the possible risk of torture run by the complainant under both national (art. 532, para. 5, of the Criminal Procedure Code) and international (such as art. 3 of the Convention) provisions. The Committee therefore concludes that the State party’s authorities have failed in their duty to carry out an individualized risk assessment before 5 6 See, mutatis mutandis, communications No. 444/2010, Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, No. 39/1996, Paez v. Sweden, Views adopted on 28 April 1997, No. 110/1998, Núñez Chipana v. Venezuela, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, para. 5.6, and No. 297/2006, Singh Sogi v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2007. General comment No. 1 and, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010. 9