CAT/C/54/D/556/2013 requested that the Board re-examine his case. The Board rejected the request on 24 October 2013. 4.3 The State party submits that the claim is based on alleged threats, assault and torture during an arrest by the Chechen authorities, but that such claims are manifestly unfounded and, therefore, inadmissible under article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.4 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the Committee must decide whether a complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she is being returned. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to his or her country. The State party, referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence,8 submits that additional grounds must exist to show personal risk. 4.5 In considering the present case, the State party therefore examined the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation and, in particular, the complainant’s personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned there. The State party notes that it is up to the complainant, who must present an arguable case, to establish that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.9 In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory, but does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 4.6 Regarding the current human rights situation in the Russian Federation and, specifically, in the northern Caucasus, recent reports show that the general level of violence has decreased in recent years.10 The State party does not underestimate concerns regarding the human rights situation, since recent reports still contain information on human rights violations committed against the civilian population in the form of arbitrary detentions, abductions, torture and extrajudicial killings. 4.7 The State party submits that several provisions of the Swedish Aliens Act reflect the principles enshrined in article 3 of the Convention and, therefore, when considering asylum applications, its authorities apply the same kind of test as the Committee in order to assess the risk of torture. According to chapter 12, sections 1 to 3, of the Aliens Act, asylum seekers cannot be returned to a country where there are reasonable grounds to assume that they would be in danger of being subjected to the death penalty, corporal punishment, torture or other degrading treatment or punishment. 4.8 The State party also submits that the national authorities are in a very good position to assess the information submitted by asylum seekers and the credibility of claims. In the present case, the Migration Board and the Migration Court have made a thorough examination of the material before them. With regard to the initial asylum claim, the 8 9 10 The State party refers to communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3, and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. The State party refers to, inter alia, communication No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13. References are made to the following reports: Department of State of the United States of America, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2012: Russia”; Amnesty International, “Amnesty International Annual Report 2012 – Russian Federation”; Human Rights Watch, “World Report 2012: Russia”; Swedish Migration Board country profile on the Russian Federation of 25 February 2011; report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Sweden of 2011; report of the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre of 2013; and report of the Danish Refugee Council. 5