CAT/C/50/D/392/2009 grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion while taking note of its general comment, the Committee also recalls that, under article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, it shall consider communications received in the light of all information made available to it by or on behalf of the individual and by the State party concerned, and that, under that article it thus has the power of free assessment of the facts of a case based upon the full set of relevant circumstances. 7.3 The Committee must determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture in Togo. In order to do so, it must, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of its determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would 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 be adduced to show that the individual concerned would personally be at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not necessarily mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture under the specific circumstances applying to that person’s case. 7.4 The Committee is aware that the human rights situation in Togo is worrying and, in fact, it referred to serious human rights violations, especially in places of detention, in its concluding observations on the State party’s second periodic report, which it considered in November 2012.6 Nonetheless, the Committee notes that the facts as presented to it do not provide it with grounds for concluding that the complainant would personally face a present, foreseeable and real risk of torture if he were sent back to Togo. The complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to establish his ties with the Union for Forces for Change or the nature of his activities as a member of that political party. He has not furnished evidence that he is sought by the authorities and is in danger of being arrested. He has not provided evidence or detailed information to support his claims that he was detained and tortured. He has provided no medical record or other document concerning any after-effects that would corroborate his alleged arrest or the ill-treatment that he says he was subjected to while being held in detention between April 2005 and May 2006. The arguments put forward regarding the human rights situation existing in Togo after his arrival in Canada do not suffice to establish the existence of a personal risk. 7.5 Taking into account all the information made available to it, the Committee has concluded that the complainant has failed to establish that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is sent back to Togo at this time. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considers that the State party’s decision to return the complainant to Togo would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Adopted in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the French text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued also in Arabic and Chinese as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.] 6 GE.13-45411 CAT/C/TGO/CO/2. 9