CAT/C/52/D/466/2011 have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds immediately with the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 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. 8.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to his country of origin. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 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. 8.3 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”, the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.20 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by the organs of the State party concerned,21 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.4 The Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been tortured during his imprisonment in Turkey between 1983 and 1991 and that the State party should have ordered a medical examination to verify the veracity of his allegations. The Committee, however, notes that the State party’s authorities thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant, found it to lack credibility, and did not consider it necessary to order a medical examination. In addition, it notes that the complainant’s request for a medical examination was formulated only at a very late stage, that is, in the framework of the second request to reopen the asylum proceedings, submitted to the Appeals Board on the complainant’s behalf in 2011. What is more, the Committee doubts the purpose which any medical examination would have served if carried out over 20 years after the alleged torture. 20 21 See, inter alia, communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See also communication No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005, para. 8.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 13