CAT/C/52/D/475/2011 grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable … The author must establish that … such danger is personal and present”.11 In that regard, in previous decisions the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. 11.5 With regard to the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations, the Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Uzbekistan, in which it expressed its concern about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations that torture and ill-treatment were routinely used by law enforcement and investigative officials, or at their instigation or with their consent, and that persons deprived of their liberty were subjected to torture or ill-treatment for the purpose of compelling a forced confession and that such confessions were subsequently admitted as evidence in court in the absence of a thorough investigation into the torture allegations (CAT/C/UZB/CO/4, paras. 7 and 16). 11.6 The Committee notes that the complainant’s brother’s extradition is sought pursuant to a request from Uzbekistan accusing him of serious crimes, including terrorism, religious extremism, attempts to overthrow the constitutional order and, in particular, participation in the Andijan events. The Committee reiterates its concern, expressed in its concluding observations following its consideration of the second periodic report of Kazakhstan, about forcible returns to Uzbekistan in the name of the fight against terrorism, and the unknown conditions, treatment and whereabouts of persons returned following their arrival (CAT/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 15). It also reiterates that the non-refoulement principle in article 3 of the Convention is absolute and the fight against terrorism does not absolve the State party from honouring its obligation to refrain from expelling or returning (“refouler”) an individual to another State, where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture.12 In that context, the Committee also observes that the non-refoulement principle in article 3 of the Convention is absolute even if, after an evaluation under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is excluded under article 1 F (c) of the latter Convention.13 11.7 In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the information before it sufficiently establishes a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights and the significant risk of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Uzbekistan, in particular for individuals accused of terrorism and of having participated in the Andijan events. 11.8 The Committee recalls that, under the terms of its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3, it will give considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, but that the Committee is not bound by such findings and has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based on the full set of circumstances in every case.14 In the present case, the Committee notes that the only body that addressed the issue of whether the complainant’s brother faced a risk of torture on return to Uzbekistan was the West Kazakhstan Regional Court in its decision of 7 May 2012. The court plainly rejected the 11 12 13 14 General comment No. 1, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX, paras. 6 and 7. See communications No. 39/1996, Paez v. Sweden, Views adopted on 28 April 1997; No. 110/1998, Núñez Chipana v. Venezuela, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, para. 5.6; and No. 297/2006, Singh Sogi v. Canada, decision adopted on 16 November 2007. See communication No. 444/2010, Abdussamatov et al v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 1 June 2012, para. 13.7. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010. 11