CAT/C/65/D/801/2017 Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Armenia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 In the present case, the Committee must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Armenia. In assessing that 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 in the country of return. The Committee recalls that the aim of the assessment 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 a 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. 4 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee recalls that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real” (para. 11). Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: the complainant’s ethnic background; previous torture; incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; and clandestine escape from the country of origin because of threats of torture (para. 45). 7.5 The Committee also recalls that the burden of proof is on the author of the complaint, who must present an arguable case, namely that he or she must submit arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when the complainant is in a situation where he or she cannot elaborate on his or her case, for instance when the complainant has demonstrated that he or she has no possibility of obtaining documentation relating to his or her allegation of torture, or is deprived of his or her liberty, the burden of proof is reversed and it is up to the State party concerned to investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the complaint is based.5 The Committee further recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned, however it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 6 7.6 In the present case, the complainant claims that there is a consistent pattern of gross and massive violations of human rights in Armenia and submits that, on this basis alone, the State party should refrain from expelling him to Armenia. In that connection, the Committee notes the current human rights situation in Armenia and refers to its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Armenia, in which it expressed concern, inter alia, about the persistent allegations of torture and ill-treatment perpetrated by law 4 5 6 6 See, inter alia, S.K. and others v. Sweden (CAT/C/54/D/550/2013), para. 7.3. General comment No. 4, para. 38. Ibid., para. 50.