CAT/C/50/D/430/2010 torture upon his return to Tunisia. The Committee also recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) 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. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable”28 but must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.29 The Committee further recalls that, pursuant to its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned,30 but that it is not bound by such findings and instead is empowered, by virtue of article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, to undertake a free assessment of the facts based on the full set of circumstances in each case. 11.4 In assessing whether the State party’s extradition of the alleged victim to Tunisia was in violation of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such a determination is to establish whether the individual concerned was personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he was to be returned. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. By arriving at a determination on the existence of a foreseeable, real and personal risk of torture, the Committee expresses no opinion as to the veracity or gravity of the criminal charges against Onsi Abichou at the time of his extradition. 11.5 The Committee recalls that the prohibition against torture is absolute and nonderogable and that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture.31 While taking note of the follow-up measures implemented by the State party, the Committee recalls that diplomatic assurances cannot be used as a justification for failing to apply the principle of non-refoulement as set forth in article 3 of the Convention.32 The Committee takes note of the arguments advanced by the complainant to the effect that, in view of the frequent use of torture in Tunisia and the ill-treatment inflicted on the two other defendants arrested in the same case, there was a substantial risk that Onsi Abichou would also be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment in the event of his extradition to Tunisia. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that Onsi Abichou did not belong to groups that were exposed to such a risk, since he did not face charges linked to terrorism. The State party has also pointed out to the Committee that the extradition request was accompanied by diplomatic assurances from Tunisia indicating that Onsi Abichou would be afforded a trial de novo in which the rights 28 29 30 31 32 GE.13-45615 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44), annex IX, para. 6. See, inter alia, communication No. 258/2004, Mostafa Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005, and communication No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 2005. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. See Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/63/44), annex VI, para. 5. See communication No. 444/2010, Abdussamatov et al. v. Kazakhstan, decision adopted on 1 June 2012, para. 13.10. 15