CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 explanation as to why this article is only produced at this late stage. According to the translation requested by the Board, the article was published in The Nangarhar Daily newspaper on 15 July 2010. It appears from the article that the security police of the Nangarhar province informed the public that K.H.,5 son of K.R., residing in the Nangarhar province, Chaparhar district, had been arrested with two friends by the security forces on suspicion of having placed roadside bombs. However, the persons succeeded in escaping after one day. The two friends were arrested again. The State party further points out that it is not possible to establish the authenticity of this document or to verify its information. Nevertheless, even if the article is accepted as true, it does not seem to substantiate the credibility of the complainant’s statements during the asylum proceedings, due to several discrepancies between the information provided in it and his statements, such as the name of the person, his place of residence, circumstances of the arrest and release of the other arrested persons, and the dates of the alleged detention and the article’s publication. 4.17 Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party argues that the complainant has not established that his return to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. It further states that article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention requires that the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is to be returned and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, although it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable.6 The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country.7 The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 February 2012, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He asserts that in addition to a violation of article 3, paragraph 1, the State party has also violated article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, since by denying the complainant’s request for medical examination, it has failed to gather the necessary information in order to assess his claims of torture before making a final decision. 5.2 The complainant agrees with the description of the fact of the case provided by the State party. 5.3 He highlights that he fears that he is at risk of persecution by the Taliban and the Afghan authorities, in particular by the latter due to the fact that he was forced to agree to cooperate with the Taliban when he was detained by them, and this could be known by the Afghan police. If returned to Afghanistan, he would be tortured by the authorities in order to force him to confess his cooperation with the Taliban. 5.4 The Danish authorities based their assessment about the credibility of his claim on the divergent statements he gave at the beginning of the asylum proceedings. However, this problem often occurs in the first interview of asylum seekers, since they fear to tell the truth 5 6 7 8 The name provided does not correspond with the complainant’s name. The State party refers to communications Nos. 270/2005 and 271/2005, E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, paras. 7.2-7.3; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006, paras. 7.1-7.2; No. 180/2001, F.F.Z. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 30 April 2002, paras. 9-10; and No. 143/1999, S.C. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 10 May 2000, paras. 6.4 and 6.6. It also refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1. The State party refers to communications No. 220/2002, R.D. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2005, para. 8.2; No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.3; E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden, para. 7.2; and No. 286/2006, M.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 17 November 2006, para. 7.3.