Seeking Remedies for Torture Victims: A Handbook on the Individual Complaints Procedures of the UN Tready Bodies are so bad as to violate the rights of a particular detained person.261 An NGO report, or a report by an international organization, the media, or a government report (e.g. US State Department human rights report) which highlights the frequency of incidents of torture in a State will bolster an author’s contention that the victim has been tortured by agents of that State. In this regard, Nowak suggests that “if [the CAT Committee] arrives at the conclusion that torture is practiced systematically in the receiving State, the burden of proof shifts to the host State which must provide strong arguments to show why the applicant [or complainant] would not face the risk of being subjected to torture if deported. In the absence of such evidence, the [CAT] Committee usually finds a violation of Article 3”.262 However, it remains crucial to include evidence that relates personally to the victim and the facts of the actual case.263 It is not enough, for example, to point out that one is a member of an ethnic group which has historically suffered from human rights abuses at the hands of a particular State government, without establishing that one has suffered or endures a high risk of suffering personal abuse.264 As already mentioned, the Committees recognize that “complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture”.265 Nevertheless, the author should be careful in drafting the claim, and in drafting responses to State arguments, to avoid inconsistencies in his or her account of the facts. For example, it is possible that the author might assert in the initial submission that an incident took place on a certain date. The State may respond by proving that it took place on a different date. If inconsistencies do arise inadvertently, they should be acknowledged and, if possible, explained. The CAT Committee has stated that it “attaches importance to the explanations for … inconsistencies given by the complainant”,266 as well as a person’s failure to explain inconsistencies.267 In Kouidis v. Greece the author failed to establish that he had been mistreated in violation of Article 7. The following comments from the HRC demonstrate how the evidence submitted by the author was inadequate: The Committee observes that the evidence provided by the author in support of his claims of ill-treatment are a newspaper photograph of poor quality, that he allegedly spent fourteen months in hospital from related medical treatment, the lack of interrogation by the prosecution of the landlords of the apartment mentioned in his confession, and reports of NGOs and the CPT. On the other hand, the State party 261 See Model Complaint, Textbox ii, para. 11. 262 See Nowak and McArthur (2008), para. 196, p. 207. See also Sections 4.3.1–4.3.4. 263 See, e.g., CAT Committee decisions Arkauz Arana v. France, Comm. No. 63/1997, and A.S. v. Sweden, Comm. No. 149/99, as examples where both types of evidence were submitted, and the claims ultimately upheld. 264 See, e.g., CAT Committee, Z.Z. v. Canada, Comm. No.123/1999, para. 8.5. 265 CAT Committee, Tala v. Sweden, Comm. No. 43/1996, para. 10.3. 266 CAT Committee, Ahmed Karoui v. Sweden, Comm. No. 185/2001, para. 10. 88