Advance unedited version CAT/C/63/D/744/2016 must be considered that the Court has examined the complaint within the meaning of article 22 (5) (a) of the Convention.20 In the event that the Committee finds that the basis of the European Court’s decision is unclear, the State party invites the Committee to contact the secretariat of the European Court in order to clarify this issue. The State party also deems it reasonable to request the complainant to disclose to the Committee a copy of the application to the European Court, in order to provide both the State party and the Committee with an opportunity to make an assessment on the reasons for the Court’s decision of 17 July 2015 to declare the complainant’s application inadmissible. The State party maintains that if the complainant does not present the said application to the Committee, it should be presumed that an assessment of the substance matter was made by the European Court. 4.6 The State party acknowledges that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted, but irrespective of the outcome of the Committee’s examination of the issues relating to article 22 (5) (a) and (b), it considers that the complainant’s assertion that he is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of the Convention fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility and is thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention. 4.7 As to the merits of the communication, the State party considers that, according to article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. Such a pattern is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his or her return to his or her country. To benefit from the protection under article 3, an applicant should show that he or she would “personally” be at a “foreseeable and real risk” of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. Thus, when determining whether the forced return of the complainant to Iraq would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (i) the general human rights situation in Iraq and, in particular, (ii) the personal, foreseeable and real risk of the complainant being subjected to torture, following his return there. 4.8 The State party further recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, whereby the burden of proof in cases such as the present rests with the complainant, who must establish that he or she runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.21 In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be “personal and present.”22 4.9 As far as the general human rights situation in Iraq is concerned, the State party submits that since Iraq is a party to the Convention, it is assumed that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in the country. The State party holds that, while it does not wish to underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the human rights situation in Iraq, recent reports and country information23 do not 20 21 22 23 M.T. v. Sweden, paras. 8.3-8.5; A.A. v. Azerbaijan, paras. 6.6-6.9; and E.E. v. Russian Federation, paras. 8.2-8.4. The State party refers to H.O. v. Sweden (CAT/C/27/D/178/2001), para. 13, and A.R. v. the Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3. The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, paras. 5-7. The State party refers to UD, Mänskliga rättigheter, demokrati och rättsstatens principer i Irak 20152016, 26 April 2017 (http://www.regeringen.se/rapporter/2017/04/manskliga-rattigheter-demokratioch-rattsstatens-principer-i-irak/); US Department of State, Country Report on Human Rights Practices 2016 – Iraq, 3 March 2017 (https://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2016/nea/265498.htm); Norge, Landinfo, Respons: Iran: Økt kurdisk militæraktivitet i Iran, 13 February 2017 (http://landinfo.no/asset/3501/1/3501_1.pdf); Swedish Migration Agency, Lifos, Iranian Kurdish Refugees in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) Report (Lifos 25720, 7