CAT/C/28/D/180/2001 page 9 Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be at risk of being subjected to torture in his specific circumstances. 10. In the present case, therefore, the Committee has to determine whether the expulsion of the complainant to Libya would have the foreseeable consequence of exposing him to a real and personal risk of being arrested and tortured. 11. The State party has pointed out that none of the three arrests to which the complainant was subjected, were related to his political activities. It also submits that the complainant would not have been able to have his passport stamped on his departure from Libya if he had been exposed to persecution at that time, and that the Amnesty International medical report provides no objective indication that he was subjected to gross outrages. Furthermore, the events that motivated the author’s departure date far back in time, and his family has not been sought or harassed on account of the complainant since his brother’s release in 1996. The Committee considers, on the basis of the information provided, that the political activities that the complainant claims to have carried out, are not of such a nature as to conclude that he runs a real risk of being tortured upon his return. Indeed, he does not seem to be particularly exposed to persecution by the Libyan authorities. The Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has stated that Libyan citizens who return to Libya more than a year after their legal or illegal departure are frequently detained and questioned, but then released after some hours. 12. On the basis of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the complainant has not proved his claim that there are substantial grounds to support his claim that he would risk torture if returned to Libya. 13. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the removal of the complainant to Libya would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. Notes 1 Case No. 65/1997. 2 Case No. 90/1997 of 19 May 1998, and Case No. 61/1996 of 6 May 1998. 3 Case No. 15/1994 of 18 November 1994. 4 The Convention against Torture entered into force for Libya on 15 June 1989, but Libya has not recognized the competence of the Committee under article 22 of the Convention. -----