CAT/C/46/D/350/2008 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee must determine whether, in deporting the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party would be failing in its obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 In assessing the complainant’s allegations under article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of such assessment, however, is to determine whether the complainant would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It follows that the existence in that country of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if expelled to that country. Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.4 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which states that while it is not necessary to demonstrate that the risk of torture is highly probable, the risk must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has established in previous decisions that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.5 As to the burden of proof, the Committee recalls that it is generally incumbent upon the complainant to present an arguable case and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 8.5 The Committee is aware of the dire human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo6 and notes that the State party acknowledges that the situation in the country gives cause for concern. However, it also notes the doubts expressed by the State party as to the credibility of the allegations made by the complainant since his first asylum application was lodged in September 2004 and the State party’s reference to a letter from 4 5 6 GE.11-43878 Communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, Views adopted on 7 November 2006; see also communication No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, Views adopted on 15 November 2010; and communication No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 12 November 2010. Communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 21 November 2003, para. 7.3; communication No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6. See, inter alia, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights and the activities of her Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 10 January 2011 (A/HRC/16/27); Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 17 January 2011 (S/2011/20); the Committee’s concluding observations on the report submitted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT/C/DRC/CO/1/CRP.1), 2006; concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee on the report submitted by the State party under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR/C/COD/CO/3), 2006; Technical Assistance and Capacity Building. Combined report of seven thematic special procedures on technical assistance to the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and urgent examination of the situation in the east of the country (A/HRC/10/59), 5 March 2009. 11