CAT/C/58/D/627/2014 4.3 The State party further notes that the complainant’s assertion that he is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention if returned to Bangladesh fails to rise to the minimum level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. The complaint is therefore manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure.5 4.4 The State party notes that when determining whether the forced return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in that country. However, the aim of such a determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country of return. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture there. For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist showing a personal risk.6 4.5 The State party notes that when determining whether the forced return of the complainant to Bangladesh would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human rights situation in Bangladesh and, in particular, (b) the personal risk to the complainant of being subjected to torture there. 4.6 The State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof rests with complainants, who must present an arguable case establishing that they run a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture. 7 Such a risk 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.8 4.7 The State party notes that, given that Bangladesh is a party to the Convention and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it assumes that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in that country. The State party therefore finds it sufficient to refer to the information regarding the human rights situation in Bangladesh, which can be found in a number of recent reports.9 4.8 The State party submits that while it does not underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with regard to the negative human rights developments in Bangladesh in 2013, the current situation, as described in the above-mentioned reports, is not in itself sufficient to establish that the deportation of the complainant would entail a 5 6 7 8 9 The State party refers to communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2. The State party refers to communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3, and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. See, for example, communications No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13, and No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, for example, the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, paras. 5-7. The State party refers to Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Sweden, “Human rights in Bangladesh” (2013); International Federation for Human Rights, “Bangladesh human rights report 2013” (April 2014); United States of America Department of State, “Country reports on human rights practices for 2013 – Bangladesh”; and Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2014: Bangladesh”. 5