CAT/C/66/D/771/2016 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 evaluation 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. The existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country therefore 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, and 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. 21 10.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 (para. 11), 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 removal, either as an individual or a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee also recalls that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”. 10.5 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 (ibid., para. 38). 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 (ibid., para. 50). 10.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claims that he risks being subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Rwanda as he will be perceived as a political opponent by the Rwandan authorities because of his involvement in the Rwandan opposition in the Netherlands and his family history. It also notes his claims that the safeguards guaranteed by the Transfer Law are insufficient as a protective measure. At the same time, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has been extradited to Rwanda under the Transfer Law and will therefore be detained in conditions that meet international standards and that, if convicted, he will serve his sentence in a prison meeting international standards. It also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant has not substantiated his claim that the Rwandan authorities would regard him as a political opponent. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s claim that he is at risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention after the trial has concluded is purely speculative. 10.7 The Committee notes that the complainant’s claims of being at risk of torture or illtreatment if extradited were examined by the State party authorities prior to his extradition. It also notes that the complainant was extradited under the Transfer Law, which prescribes that any person transferred to Rwanda for trial under the law will be detained in accordance with international minimum standards of detention. 22 It further notes that the complainant has been detained in Mpanga Prison and Kigali Central Prison, both of which have been found to meet international minimum standards of detention. 23 The Committee notes that the complainant was extradited under a monitoring agreement and that regular monitoring 21 22 23 See, inter alia, S.K. and others v. Sweden (CAT/C/54/D/550/2013), para. 7.3. Article 23 of the Transfer Law stipulates that: “Any person who is transferred to Rwanda by the [International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda] for trial shall be detained in accordance with the minimum standards of detention stipulated in the United Nations Body of Principles for the Protection of all persons under any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by General Assembly resolution 43/173 of 9 December, 1998.” In accordance with article 24 of the Transfer Law it applies “mutatis mutandis in other matters where there is transfer of cases to the Republic of Rwanda from other States or where transfer of cases or extradition of suspects is sought by the Republic of Rwanda from other States”. European Court of Human Rights, Ahorugeze v. Sweden (application no. 37075/09), 27 October 2011, para. 92. 11