CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable”,11 the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.12 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned,13 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 9.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has acknowledged and taken into account the fact that much remained to be done in Egypt concerning the treatment of arrestees and detainees and the occurrence of torture at police stations. However, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the human rights situation in Egypt, the State party held that it could not be said that the situation in Egypt at the time of consideration of the first complainant’s case by the national authorities was such that there was a general need of protection for asylum seekers from Egypt. 9.6 As to the State party’s position in relation to the assessment of the first complainant’s risk of being subjected to torture, the Committee notes that the State party has accepted that it appeared not unlikely that he would still attract the interest of the Egyptian authorities due to his family relationship with the convicted murderer of President al-Sadat, even though the events took place a long time ago. Furthermore, his Internet activities in Sweden, questioning whether the real murderers of President al-Sadat were convicted and punished, should also be taken into account in this context. Finally, the State party has accepted that it could not be excluded that the rest of the family would also attract the interest of the Egyptian authorities. It specifically pointed out that the second complainant had allegedly been subjected to harsh treatment by the Egyptian security police and the third complainant had allegedly been repeatedly raped by police officers while in Egyptian custody. Consequently, it was not possible to fully exclude that he would be exposed to similar treatment if returned to Egypt. 9.7 The Committee acknowledges the fact that, owing to the first complainant’s background and the nature of the other complainants’ allegations, the State party leaves the assessment of whether an enforcement of their expulsion orders would amount to a violation of the Convention to the Committee. In the light of the State party’s acceptance that it was likely that the first, second and third complainants would attract the interest of 11 12 13 14 The Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX, para. 6. Ibid. See also, communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3.