CAT/C/59/D/658/2015 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 recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would personally be at a foreseeable and real risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she would return. 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 be adduced to show that the individual concerned would personally be at risk. 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. 6 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, and reaffirms that the existence of a risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to be shown to be highly probable, 7 the Committee recalls that the burden of proof normally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she is at foreseeable, real and personal risk. 8 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by the organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in each case.9 7.5 The complainant claims that, in Ethiopia, she could be persecuted or subjected to torture because of her membership of Ginbot 7 and her political activities in Ethiopia and Switzerland and the fact that Ginbot 7 was declared to be a terrorist organization in 2011. She adds that even ordinary members or supporters of Ginbot 7 may be arbitrarily arrested and subjected to abuse in prison, and refers to the interrogations that she has undergone in the past and the fact that the security services have shown interest in the political activities of her partner. 7.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been ill-treated and threatened by the police because of her political activities twice, on 17 and 24 May 2012. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, the fact that, during her first hearing, the complainant did not mention her arrest on 24 May 2012, when she was detained for several hours, severely beaten and threatened with death, and the inconsistencies in her statements about the number of policemen who questioned her, make her allegations implausible. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s political activities in Switzerland, despite being proven, do not constitute lasting and intense activity that could be considered a serious and real threat to the Government. The Committee also takes note of the medical reports concerning the complainant’s health, indicating a major depressive episode and suicidal ideation, as symptoms of the post-traumatic stress disorder from which she suffers. The Committee also notes that the complainant’s credibility should be assessed taking account of the vulnerable state of her mental health. The Committee further notes that, according to the State party, there are numerous medical facilities adapted to treat the complainant and her daughter in Ethiopia, where the complainant could be supported by the presence of her mother and her partner’s family. 6 7 8 9 8 See, for example, communication No. 490/2012, E.K.W. v. Finland, decision adopted on 4 May 2015, para. 9.3. General comment No. 1, para. 6. Ibid. See also communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. the Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; communication No. 343/2008, Kalonzo v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 9.3; communication No. 458/2011, X v. Denmark, decision adopted on 28 November 2014, para. 9.3; and communication No. 520/2012, W.G.D. v. Canada, decision adopted on 26 November 2014, para. 8.4. See general comment No. 1, para. 9; communication No. 375/2009, T.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 8.7; and communication No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014, para. 8.3. GE.17-04946