CAT/C/44/D/356/2008 by other acquaintances of the complainant were irrelevant to the present case. As to hypothetical sanctions for desertion, the Court noted that the complainant had never claimed having received any convocation to enrol in the army. 4.5 According to the CAM, neither the death of his father nor of his uncle indicates that there is a risk of persecution for the complainant. His father died two years after the complainant’s arrival in Istanbul, and his uncle died as a consequence of the injuries received during a virulent argument with two individuals who were subsequently arrested. The inexistence of a risk of persecution is corroborated by other elements: the death of the complainant’s father took place four years after the 1993 attack; the complainant did not encounter any problems with the authorities during his stay in Istanbul; and his mother, sisters, and brothers are officially registered in Istanbul, where they settled after the death of his father. 4.6 The State party refers to the Committee’s General Comment No.1 5 and observes that article 3 of the Convention prohibits States parties from extraditing an individual to a State if there are serious grounds to believe that the individual would be at risk of torture. It also recalls that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not constitute sufficient reason for concluding that a particular individual is likely to be subjected to torture on return to his or her country, and that additional grounds must exist before the likelihood of torture can be deemed to be, "foreseeable, real and personal", for the purposes of article 3, paragraph 1; the risk in question must also be serious. 4.7 The State party recalls that paragraph 8 of the general comment requires, inter alia, to take into account the following information when assessing the risk of expelling someone: information on the changes in the internal situation in the receiving State; allegations on the complainant’s torture in the recent past and information from independent sources in this regard; the complainant’s political activities in and outside his/her country of origin; existence of evidence on the credibility of the complainant; and existence of relevant factual inconsistencies in the complainant’s claim. 4.8 The State party recalls that in order to assess whether there are serious grounds to believe that a complainant would be at risk of torture in case of forcible removal, the Committee must take into account all pertinent considerations, in particular proof on the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the receiving State. The complainant, however, has to face a personal risk of being subjected to torture. Therefore, the sole existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations does not constitute sufficient ground to believe that an individual would be subjected to torture in the receiving State. The State party recalls that additional grounds must exist. 4.9 The State party recalls that the Committee has already dealt with a number of cases relating to forcible return to Turkey. It notes that the Committee had concluded that the human rights situation there was most problematic, in particular in relation to PKK militants who have often been tortured by the authorities, and this practice was not limited to a particular region. When the Committee had concluded in such communications that complainants would be at a personal and real risk of being tortured, it was established that the complainants had been engaged politically in favor of the PKK, that they had been detained and tortured prior to their departure from Turkey, and that their allegations were confirmed by independent sources, such as medical certificates. The State party further 5 6 General Comment No.1, 21 November 1997, A/53/44, annex IX.