CAT/C/53/D/489/2012 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Iran would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Iran. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows 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. 6 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) 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”. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable”, it must be personal and present. The Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. 7 The Committee recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, but is not bound by such findings and instead can, under article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, assess the facts of each case, taking into account the circumstances.8 7.5 Referring to its recent jurisprudence,9 the Committee recalls that there are ongoing reports regarding the use of psychological and physical torture to solicit confessions in Iran indicating the widespread and systematic use of such practices,10 and of incidents of detention and torture of political opponents of the regime in place.11 The Committee considers that to be all the more alarming in the light of the fact that Iran frequently administers the death penalty, which it applies without due process and in cases involving certain crimes not meeting international criteria for the most serious offences.12 The State party itself has recognized the existence of such a situation in Iran. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 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. See, inter alia, communications No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005, and No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 2005. General comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, para. 9; communication No. 375/2009, T.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 7.7. See communications No. 481/2011, K.N., F.W. and S.N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 19 May 2014; No. 357/2008, Jahani v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 23 May 2011; No. 381/2009, Faragollah et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 November 2011. See the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/69/356), para. 16. See the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/25/61), paras. 23–29; Note by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/68/503), paras. 1, 6, 8 and 30. See A/HRC/25/61 (see footnote 11), paras. 6–12 and 84; See also communication No. 481/2011, K.N., F.W. and S.N. v. Switzerland (see footnote 11), para. 7.6. 7