CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 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 complainants 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. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to their country of origin. 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 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.19 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, 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”, 20 the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. 21 While under the terms of its general comment the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, it recalls that it is not a judicial or appellate body, and that it must give considerable weight to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned.22 7.5 The complainants claim that in the Russian Federation they may be tortured, since there are substantial grounds to believe that the harassment and aggression they previously experienced in Chechnya will escalate further. 7.6 In this connection, the Committee notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainants were subjected to ill-treatment and/or harassment in the past, the question is whether they remain, at present, at risk of torture if returned to the Russian Federation. The Committee notes that, at present, the human rights situation in the Russian Federation remains a matter of concern in several aspects, in particular in the northern Caucasus. It recalls that it expressed its concerns in its concluding observations in the context of the examination of the fifth periodic report of the Russian Federation in 2012, citing numerous, 19 20 21 22 12 See, inter alia, communication No. 519/2012, T.M. v. Republic of Korea, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 9.3. General comment No. 1, para. 6. Ibid., para. 5 and A.R. v. The Netherlands, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3.