CAT/C/31/D/0215/2002 Page 7 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person may not be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.4 In the present case, the Committee notes the observations of the State party to the effect that the complainant did not produce evidence of having been involved in political activities in Colombia, and that he did not run a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture, since it had also received information from the Colombian authorities reporting that the complainant had been briefly detained, and notes that there is no evidence that he was tortured subsequent to his return to Colombia. The Committee further observes that his counsel reports that the complainant is currently on parole. 7.5 The Committee moreover notes the circumstances which gave rise to doubts on the part of the State party’s authorities concerning the need to grant the complainant protection. It is aware that the complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he was subjected to torture in Colombia.9 Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Committee considers that the information provided by the complainant does not provide substantial grounds for believing that he was personally in danger of being tortured when returned to Colombia. 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 complainant of the complaint has not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon his return to Colombia, and therefore concludes that the complainant’s removal to that country did not constitute a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the Spanish 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.] Notes 1 The complainant does not indicate in his initial communication or in his subsequent comments when or where these acts of torture allegedly took place. 2 The offence involved smuggling a kilo of cocaine from Colombia to Sweden with the intention of selling it in the territory of the State party. 3 The Swedish Aliens Appeals Board further considered that the complainant had entered Swedish territory under a false identity, and that under that identity he had applied in 1998 for a work permit, claiming that he was involved with a Swedish woman, although he was married and had a family in Colombia. In the Board’s opinion, all of this seriously undermined his credibility when it came to requiring the protection of the State party.