CAT/C/68/D/860/2018 Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 12.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to the Russian Federation 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. 12.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation. 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 a 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 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. 3 12.4 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 Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in the case of his or her deportation (para. 11). 12.5 The Committee recalls that the burden of proof is on the complainant, who must present an arguable case, that is submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. 4 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings. The Committee 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.5 12.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s submission that there are substantial grounds for believing that, upon return to the Russian Federation, he would be subjected to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. He claims that this risk emanates from Ramzan Kadyrov’s interest in the complainant because he is the son of an adviser to Aslan Maskhadov, because of his own assistance to a rebel movement between 1999 and 2002 and because of his association with X. He also claims to have been tortured by the Russian authorities in 2002 because of his assistance to rebels. 12.7 As for the complainant’s claim that he was tortured in connection with his assistance to a rebel movement, the Committee observes that the authorities of the State party found the complainant’s account to be vague and suffering from credibility issues for which he did not offer a reasonable explanation. The Committee furthermore recalls that previous torture, while one possible indication of a personal risk of treatment contrary to article 1,6 is 3 4 5 6 10 See L.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/66/D/729/2016), para. 9.3, and M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 7.3. General comment No. 4, para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. Ibid., paras. 18 (d), 29 (e) and 45 (g).