CAT/C/52/D/481/2011 grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.13 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, in which it states that “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” (para. 6), it must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.14 The Committee recalls that, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs 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, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case.15 7.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations concerning the complainants’ lack of credibility. These concerns are based on allegations including the presentation of contradictory and incomplete information concerning K.N.’s and S.N.’s activities for Komala; the questionable authenticity or veracity of certain of the documents provided by the complainants to substantiate K.N.’s involvement in Komala (namely, the summons and the corroborating statements provided by Mr. Azizpour); and the convenient timing of their political activities in Switzerland. The Committee also notes the State party’s position that K.N’s activities within the Komala party are superficial in nature and would not be noticed by or be of interest to the Iranian authorities. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the complainants’ assertions regarding the attempts by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to identify political dissidents living abroad. The Committee notes that the State party, while expressing disagreement regarding the extent of this surveillance, observes that active expatriate dissidents risk persecution upon their return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Committee is seriously concerned by findings that the Iranian authorities engage in extensive attempts to identify and sanction political dissidents, including ethnic Kurds and alleged members of the Komala party.16 7.6 The Committee regrets that the State party did not provide observations on the documentation17 recently submitted by the complainants to establish that they are still being sought by the Iranian authorities, who have recently tortured three of their friends on account of their association with K.N., and that a person known to K.N. denounced him to the Iranian police. The Committee is concerned at the many reports of human rights violations, including the use of torture, in Iran.18 The Committee does not have information indicating that this situation has significantly improved following the change in leadership when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad left office in 2013. Indeed, the Committee notes that the human rights situation in Iran remains extremely alarming, with ongoing 13 14 15 16 17 18 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. See, inter alia, communications No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005, and No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 2005. See general comment No. 1, para. 9; communication No. 375/2009, T.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 7.7. See, e.g., Note by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/68/503), paras. 1, 6, 8 and 30; Note by the Secretary-General on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/67/369), paras. 15–18; Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran (A/HRC/19/66), pp. 23–29. The new documentation is referred to in para. 3.5. See Hamid Reza Eftekhary v. Norway, communication No. 312/2007, decision adopted on 11 January 2012, paras. 7.4–7.6. 9