CAT/C/53/D/458/2011 information presented by the complainant. However, the Board found the information on torture non-credible. The State party observes that a person subjected to torture may find it difficult to talk about it owing to trauma or other blocks. At the same time, the statement in the Amnesty International medical group report that the objective findings of a person who is examined are compatible with the person’s information about torture given to the medical group, cannot as such be considered adequate proof that the findings described and the person’s mental state have in fact arisen in the manner stated by the person at the medical examination. This applies in particular when information about torture is submitted at a very late stage of the proceedings, even though the complainant has previously had several opportunities to provide such information. In the present case, not only did the complainant submit the information very late, but she also changed and added information several times, which gave rise to considerable doubt. 4.12 Should the Committee find the complaint admissible, the State party argues that the complainant has not established that her return to Ethiopia will put her in danger of being subjected to torture, in violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It further states that article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention requires that the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is to be returned and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, although it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 4 The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country. 5 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 29 October 2011, the complainant submitted her comments on the State party’s observations. With her comments, the complainant also submitted a declaration of 27 March 2011 from the Oromo Liberation Front that states that the complainant is an active member of the Oromo Liberation Front.6 Regarding the State party’s claims that the information about the torture was submitted at a very late stage, the complainant submits that, at her first interview with the Danish police, the police officers should have observed that she had scars all over her feet, legs and knees as a result of the torture she had suffered in her country and should have asked about her asylum motive, including her political activities. 5.2 The complainant argues that she has made a prima facie case under the Convention and that the fact that she was already a victim of torture and her involvement with the Oromo Liberation Front makes it highly probable that she will again be at a personal risk of 4 5 6 See communications Nos. 270/2005 and 271/2005, E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, paras. 7.2 and 7.3; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006, paras. 7.1 and 7.2; No. 180/2001, F.F.Z. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 30 April 2002, paras. 9 and 10; and No. 143/1999, S.C. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 10 May 2000, paras. 6.4 and 6.6. See also general comment No. 1 of the Committee against Torture. See communications No. 220/2002, Ruben David v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2005, para. 8.2; No. 245/2004, S.S.S. v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2005, para. 8.3; Nos. 270/2005 and 271/2005, E.R.K. and Y.K. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 30 April 2007, paras. 7.2 and 7.3; and No. 286/2006, M.R.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 17 November 2006, para. 7.3. The declaration states that the complainant is an active member of the Oromo Liberation Front, without providing any details. 7