CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 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. 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, in which it states that 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, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof normally falls upon the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. The Committee also recalls that, as set forth in its general comment No. 1, while it gives considerable weight to the findings of fact of the State party’s bodies, it is entitled freely to assess the facts of each case, taking into account the specific circumstances. 8.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has accepted that the complainant was detained by the Taliban while he was working on a road construction project, and that the Taliban subjected him to serious violence, causing him at least one broken rib. The Committee also notes that the State party considered that the complainant would not risk outrages by the Taliban upon his return since he was not individually persecuted, he had given them a false identity, and he was able to live in Afghanistan without further problems. The Committee notes that the State party argues that the complainant’s claim as to the alleged torture inflicted by the Afghan authorities was not credible due to diverging statements about his place of origin, and the circumstances of his detention and escape from prison. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the Immigration Service interviews and the Danish Refugee Appeals Board hearing were held with the assistance of an interpreter working to and from Pashto and that the complainant made no comments about language problems. The Committee further notes that despite the complainant’s request, the Board considered that a specialized medical examination was unnecessary since his statements were contradictory. 8.6 The Committee notes that the complainant contests the State party’s assessment as to the risk he would face if returned to Afghanistan. He claims that he would be at risk of persecution by the Taliban and the Afghan authorities. The Committee notes that the complainant claims that the State party has not explained why the uncontested claim concerning the violence he was subjected to by the Taliban is not relevant under asylum law, and that the authorities failed to assess whether the Afghan authorities would be able to protect him against possible reprisals from the Taliban. As to his claim about the violence inflicted by the Afghan authorities, the Committee also notes that the complainant claims that the State party based its assessment about the credibility of his claim on the divergent statements he gave within the asylum proceedings, that his statement’s inconsistency stemmed from inadequate language interpretation, and that he was unable to check it since he is illiterate. He further argues that although he requested the Refugee Appeals Board for a specialized medical examination in order to verify whether he has signs of torture, and showed the Board alleged signs of torture on his hands and one leg or foot, the Board rejected his request for asylum without ordering this examination. 8.7 The Committee observes that it is not disputed that the complainant was detained by the Taliban and subjected to violence, causing him at least one broken rib. The Committee also observes however that the complainant’s allegation of persecution by Taliban is mainly related to his father’s and brother’s activities, that they were killed around 2006 or 2007, that there is no claim that this persecution continues against any other member of the family, including the complainant, and that his detention and ill-treatment was not related to a personal persecution. The Committee further observes that after this incident the 12