CAT/C/55/D/505/2012 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainants to India 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/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to India. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account 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. 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; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.32 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the human rights situation in Punjab and in India has improved and stabilized in recent years. It observes, however, that reports submitted both by the complainant and the State party confirm, inter alia, that numerous incidents of torture in police custody continue to take place, and that there is widespread impunity for perpetrators. The Committee observes 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 was in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned was personally at risk.33 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, 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, but it must be personal and present. In that regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that it should accord the requisite weight to the conclusions of the RPD and the IRB, which had conducted a thorough assessment of the risks alleged by the complainants and that the complainants’ allegations did not warrant any reassessment of the facts and evidence by the Committee. In this respect, the Committee recalls that under the terms of 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 under article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.5 The Committee notes that the complainants claim to have been tortured in the past. The Committee, however, notes that the responsible organs of the State party had thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainants and found it to lack credibility. The Committee further observes that, even assuming that the complainants had been tortured while in pretrial detention, the alleged instances of torture did not occur in the recent past.34 8.6 The Committee further notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainants were subjected to torture in the past, the question is whether they currently run a risk of torture if returned to India. It does not necessarily follow that, several years 32 33 34 See communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision of 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision of 12 November 2010. See communications No. 302/2006, A.M. v. France, decision of 5 May 2010, para. 13.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, para. 7.1; and No. 319/2007, Singh v. Canada, decision of 30 May 2011, para. 8.2. See, for example, communication No. 431/2010, Y. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 May 2013, para. 7.7. 17