CAT/C/51/D/434/2010 degrading treatment in violation of article 16.16 The Committee notes the medical evidence presented by the main complainant demonstrating that he suffers from a deteriorated state of mental health. The Committee considers, however, that the aggravation of the complainant’s state of health, which might be caused by his deportation, is in itself insufficient to substantiate this claim. Further, as regards the complainant’s wife, the Committee notes that she has not presented any medical documentation or other evidence concerning her present state of health. Consequently, the Committee considers this claim as insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility in accordance with article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. 7.5 The Committee considers, however, that the main complainant’s claim that he would be tortured if returned to China on account of his religion raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, which should be examined on the merits and declares this part of the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the main complainant to China would violate 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. 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 China. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, 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 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. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, that “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”,17 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.18 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.19 16 17 18 19 See, e.g. communication No. 227/2003, A.C. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 16 November 2006, para. 7.3. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX, para. 6. 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, for example, communication No. 431/2010, Y v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013, para.7.5. 15