CAT/C/32/D/135/1999 Page 7 situation in Turkey was not regarded as constituting grounds for not returning rejected asylum seekers to that country. 4.4 The State party emphasizes that the human rights situation in Turkey receives continued attention from the Dutch government, and that in July 1999, influenced by reports of the death of a former asylum seeker who was expelled to Turkey in April 1999, it suspended the expulsion of Kurds to Turkey. By letter of 8 December 1999, the State Secretary for Justice stated that, on the basis of investigations conducted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it had been decided to resume expulsions.11 4.5 In relation to the petitioner’s personal circumstances, the State party summarizes the information provided by the complainant to the IND during the first and second interviews, relating to his activities in Turkey and his treatment by the Turkish authorities. It notes that, in his decisions of 13 August and 29 September 1997, the State Secretary for Justice concluded that the complainant was not a refugee and that he did not face a genuine risk of being subjected to inhuman treatment within the meaning of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in the event of his return. The Hague District Court dismissed the complainant’s appeal on 23 July 1998. The complainant’s second asylum application was rejected on 19 March 1999, and this decision was upheld on appeal by the Hague District Court on 7 May 1999. The State party remarks that, following proceedings by the author to challenge his alien detention, the detention order against him was withdrawn with effect from 1 September 1999. 4.6 The State party observes that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon being returned to that country; specific grounds must exist indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.12 The individual must face a real, foreseeable and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he is to be returned.13 In light of the State party’s own country reports, the general situation in 11 No details are provided of the form or results of the investigation. Reference is made to the Views of the Committee concerning communication No 91/1997, A. v The Netherlands, 13 November 1998, and communication No 28/1995, E.A. v Switzerland, 10 November 1997. 13 Reference is made to the Committee’s General Comment on article 3. 12