CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 refrain from expelling a person who might risk torture or ill-treatment inflicted by a nongovernmental entity falls within the scope of article 3 of the Convention in cases in which there is consent or acquiescence of the State’s authorities in the country of return to such conduct.16 However, while the complainant alleges that she initially fled Burundi because of her fear of harm by Hutu militias, she has not provided any evidence to support a claim that she would face a risk of harm by such militias if returned at the present time. 9.3 With regard to the complainant’s claims that she risks imprisonment in Burundi and that imprisonment is inevitably followed by ill-treatment, torture and rape, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that she would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to her country of origin. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 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 be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally 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. 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable”,17 the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.18 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 organs of the State party concerned,19 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 9.5 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has acknowledged and taken into account the fact that the human rights record of Burundi remained poor20 and that the general human rights situation in Burundi was still very unstable after the long civil war between the Tutsi-dominated Government and the Hutu-dominated rebel groups. However, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to 16 17 18 19 20 14 In this respect, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, as reflected in its general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 of the Convention by States parties (Official Documents of the General Assembly, Sixty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/63/44), annex VI, para. 18), that States parties bear responsibility for acts of torture or ill-treatment committed by private actors on the basis of having consented or acquiesced to such torture where the authorities know or have reasonable grounds to believe that such acts are being committed and fail to exercise due diligence to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish the perpetrators. General comment No. 1, para. 6. See, for example, communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. Conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Burundi (CAT/C/BDI/CO/1).