CAT/C/60/D/602/2014 arguments should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to the Sudan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Sudan. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The Committee remains seriously concerned about the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment perpetrated by State actors, both the military and the police, which have continued in many parts of the Sudan. 27 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 28 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The Committee recalls that, under the terms of general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by authorities of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he would be at real personal risk of torture if returned to the Sudan because: he was interrogated regarding his brother’s involvement with the Justice and Equality Movement and the brother’s whereabouts by national security officers and police officers; he was stabbed with a knife several times by security officers; he was threatened with death by police officers; and he fled a military hospital where he had been detained and subsequently the country. He also fears returning to the Sudan because of his relationship with a Christian woman, since police officers had accused him of not being a true Muslim on account of that relationship. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that its domestic authorities found that the complainant lacked credibility because, inter alia, he had made conflicting and augmentative statements during interviews, and that he and his partner had made inconsistent statements concerning the reason for their departure from the Sudan (see paras. 4.3 and 4.4 above). 8.6 In the present case, the Committee observes that the complainant’s allegations that he would risk being tortured if returned to the Sudan rely on the general human rights record of the Sudan and on the claim that, in 2007, he had been stabbed with a knife, threatened and arrested by security and police officers to make him reveal the whereabouts of his brother, a supporter of the Justice and Equality Movement. The Committee also notes the State party’s submissions that the complainant has never been involved with the 27 28 10 CCPR/C/SDN/CO/4, paras. 15-17. See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010.