Although there may be some doubts about the facts adduced by the person, it is not necessary that all the facts invoked be proved; it is sufficient that they can be considered to be sufficiently substantiated and reliable.90 The principle of strict accuracy does not necessarily apply when the inconsistencies are not of a material nature and do not raise doubts about the general veracity of the person’s claims.91 “Another State” refers to the State to which the individual concerned is being expelled, returned, or extradited as well as any State to which the individual may subsequently be expelled, returned, or extradited.92 II. INDIVIDUAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLES 1–16 OF THE CONVENTION 2. ANALYSIS OF SUBSTANTIVE PROVISIONS § 2 The general human rights situation of the recipient State has to be considered to see whether a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations exists. However, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a specific person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country; additional grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 93 34 Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.94 The person’s family background or political activities and affiliation, any history of detention and torture, as well as indications that the person is at present wanted by the authorities are elements to be taken into account when determining whether substantial grounds exist for believing that he or she is in danger of being subjected to torture.95 Past torture is another element to be taken into account, although the aim of the examination is to discover whether the person would risk being subjected to torture in the future.96 A personal risk includes a risk to members of the person’s family.97 “A consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violations of human rights” refers to violations by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, and not rooted purely in private groups or individuals.98 However, private groups which, de facto, exercise certain functions that are comparable to those normally exercised by legitimate governments may fall, for the purposes of the application of the Convention, within the phrase “public officials or other persons acting in an official capacity” contained in Article 1, and thereby give rise to a prohibition of refoulement in particular cases.99 Substantial grounds for believing that return or expulsion would expose the applicant to the risk of being subjected to torture may be based not only on acts committed in the country of origin, in other words before a person’s flight from the country, but also on activities subsequently undertaken by the person in the receiving country.100