CAT/C/62/D/685/2015 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainants to Armenia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of 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 complainants would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Armenia. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of return. The Committee recalls that the aim of the evaluation is to establish whether the individuals concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which they would be returned. 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 rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.8 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, 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 or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. 9 The Committee recalls that under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, while, at the same time, it is not bound by such findings and has the power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.5 In the present case, the complainants claim that there is a real, foreseeable and personal risk of them being killed or ill-treated by D.M. or a locally influential clan, if they are returned to Armenia. They also claim that local authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect them upon return. They further claim that the male complainant is at risk of being beaten and tortured by the police in order to extract a false confession. 8.6 As regards the complainants’ claim that they would be at risk of torture by non-State actors, the Committee recalls that the State party’s obligation to refrain from forcibly returning 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 is directly linked to the definition of torture as found in article 1 of the Convention. For the purposes of the Convention, according to article 1, “the term ‘torture’ means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity”. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a nongovernmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 10 The Committee notes that the complainants have alleged that D.M. holds an influential position with the Armenian authorities as, until 2002, he worked as a bodyguard for a former president of Armenia. Furthermore, it notes that the 8 9 10 8 See, inter alia, S.K. and others v. Sweden (CAT/C/54/D/550/2013), para. 7.3. See, inter alia, A.R. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3. See, inter alia, M.P.S. v. Australia (CAT/C/28/D/138/1999) and M.F. v. Sweden (CAT/C/41/D/326/2007).