87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 See E.A. v. Switzerland, Communication no. 28/1995, CAT/C/19/D/28/1995. See E.A. v. Switzerland, Communication no. 28/1995, CAT/C/19/D/28/1995. There is some current discussion as to the changing burden of proof. Some commentators have observed that where there is generally a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations in a country, the burden of proof upon the alleged victim is diminished, whereas if the human rights situation of a country is generally good, the burden of proof upon the alleged victim is increased. See annotated commentary to the Committee against Torture, 8 May 1996 (Alan v. Switzerland, Communication no. 21/1995), NJCM-Bulletin 22 (1997), pp. 1102-1106 . However, in view of the difficulty of establishing a case, especially with the risk of further victimisation for the individual because of taking the case to the authorities, the State should provide some assistance to the individual in preparing his or her case. This provision should be read in conjunction with Article 9, which deals with mutual assistance. Mutombo v. Switzerland, Communication no. 13/1999. P.M. Kisoki v. Sweden ,Communication no. 41/1996, CAT/C/16/D/41/1996, and K.Y. Tala v. Sweden, Communication no. 43/1996, CAT/C/17/D/43/1996. General comment no. 1, ibid. note 86. Mutombo v. Switzerland, ibid. note 90. P.M. Kisoki v. Sweden, ibid. note 91. H. Haydin v. Sweden, Communication no. 101/1997, CAT/C/21/D/101/1997. X.Y.Z. v. Sweden, Communication no. 61/1996, CAT/C/20/D/61/1996. S.M. Aemeini v. Switzerland, Communication no. 34/1995, CAT/C/18/D/34/1995. UN Report of the Committee against Torture, General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-third session (1998), Supplement no. 44 (A/53/44), Communication no. 83/1997 (Ms G.R.B. v. Sweden) p. 98, § 6.5 : “The Committee considers that the issue whether the State Party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention.” See Elmi v. Australia, Communication no. 120/1998, CAT/C/22/D/120/1998, para. 6.5. See also the position under the European Convention of Human Rights in H.L.R. v. France, where the Court stated that “Owing to the absolute character of the right guaranteed, the Court does not rule out the possibility that Article 3 of the Convention may also apply where the danger emanates from persons or groups of persons who are not public officials.” Reports 1997, iii, p. 758. S.M. Ameini v. Switzerland, ibid. note 97. General comment no. 1, ibid. note 86. Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 319. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 130. Burgers & Danelius ibid. note 54, pp. 129-130. See, for example, Initial Report of Armenia (1995), Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session,Supplement no. 44 (A/51/44). CAT/C/SR.268, § 2, under D, 12 (a) (Committee as a whole). See also the conclusions and recommendations to the report of Poland (CAT/C/25/Add.9): CAT/C/SR.279, §2, under D,5 (Committee as a whole) and E,9 (Committee as a whole). Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 340. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 129. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. CAT/C/SR.34, § 25 and 63; CAT/C/SR.145, § 3 and 13; CAT/C/SR.158, § 14. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 129. A minimum of sixty-one days for ill-treatment of an ear or finger was deemed insufficient: CAT/C/SR.40, § 25; Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 341. CAT/C/SR.93, § 75. Ingelse, ibid. note 20, p. 342. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 1. See also footnote 1 supra for a list of instruments containing provisions prohibiting the practice of torture. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 131. Burgers & Danelius, ibid. note 54, p. 1 and p. 131. Also, for a critical discussion of the use of the term “universal jurisdiction” in the context of jurisdiction over an international crime where the alleged offender is present in the territory of the State, see Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium, Judgment of the International Court of Justice, 14 February 2002, joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans & Burgenthal. The three judges propose that jurisdiction as provided for, inter alia, in the respective article of