CAT/C/49/D/385/2009 raise substantive issues which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility considerations alone. 7.4 Accordingly, the Committee finds the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. 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 concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainants to Libya would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return 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 Regarding the complainants’ allegations under article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in Libya. 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 sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if expelled to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 4 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention,5 which states that the risk of torture need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has established in previous decisions that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”. 6 As to the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls that it is normally for the complainant to present an arguable case, and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 8.5 Additionally, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, considerable weight will be given to the State party’s findings of fact, but the Committee is not bound by such findings and instead has the power of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.6 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes that the complainants have submitted some documents in support of their initial claim that they would risk torture if returned to Libya under the Qaddafi Government. However, the complainants have submitted no evidence to support their claim that they would currently be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Libya, following the revolt and change in government. In his submission of 20 April 2012, M.A.F. referred to general instability in parts of Tripoli and the health situation in the country. He further stated that he 4 5 6 8 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. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX. See communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; and No. 350/2008, R.T.-N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 8.4.