CAT/C/56/D/61312014 Advance unedited version ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, (5) (a) ofthe Convention, that the same m(;ltter has not been and is· not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not objected the admissibility of the complaint and considers that all the admissibility criteria have been met. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceedsto its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of llll information made available to it by the parties cOncerned. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Guinea would constitute a viohltion of the State party's ·obligation under artic1e 3bf the Convention not to expel or to return ("refouler") 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. 8.3 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 Guinea. In assessing that risk, the· Committee must take into account àll relevant considerations,pursuant to .article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattem of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.Höwever, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk ofbeing 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. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human :dghts does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.4 The èommittee recalls its genera! comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of . artic1e 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which 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"· (para. 6), the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a "foreseeable, real and personal" risk. 8 Although, under the tèrms ofits general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs ofthe State party concerned (para. 9).9 8.5 In the present base, the Committee takes note of the complainant's allegations that should she be returned to Guinea she would be subjected to female genital mutilation (FOM) by her relatives or any other member of the Guinea society. In support of her claims, the complainant points out that it is not refuted that she belongs to the Peul ethnic 8 9 See also, complaint No. 203/2002, A. R. v. the Netherlands,decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, complaint No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 10 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl