CAT/C/68/D/782/2016 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. 22 10.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the nonrefoulement 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 the person is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice in this context has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.23 Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the complainant’s ethnic background; (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or his or her family members; (c) previous torture; (d) incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; and (e) clandestine escape from the country of origin following threats of torture. 24 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and 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. 25 10.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that, in the event of his extradition, he would face a serious risk of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment in Egypt because of his criticism of the regime as a journalist. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant is subject to an arrest warrant because he received sentences in absentia in three different cases in Egypt, including a life sentence handed down on 28 August 2013 following his involvement in a case of forgery of authentic instruments in collusion with a public official. The Committee also notes that, according to the reports added to the case file, arbitrary detention, torture, violations of the right to a fair trial and reprisals against journalists are commonly used against journalists, a practice that is exacerbated by the absence of legislation criminalizing torture in accordance with the Convention (see paras. 3.4, 3.5, 5.8 and 5.10 above). Furthermore, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that the Court of Cassation did not apply article 721 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and did not verify whether the request for the complainant’s extradition was of a political nature. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, Moroccan criminal law is in line with the Convention, since it establishes that no person may be extradited if it is likely that he or she will be subjected to persecution for reasons of race, religion, political opinions or personal status, or if that person may be in danger for any such reasons. 10.6 The Committee must take into account the current human rights situation in Egypt, including arbitrary detentions, torture and enforced or involuntary disappearances, especially of journalists, activists and human rights defenders, 26 in retaliation for their activities and to force them to sign self-incriminating confessions. Since the Committee has not recently considered a periodic report by Egypt on its implementation of the Convention,27 the Committee refers to the conclusions that it adopted at the seventy-second session of the General Assembly under article 20 of the Convention, in which it describes torture as a “systematic” practice in Egypt. Although Egypt did not agree to the Committee’s request to conduct a visit as part of its confidential inquiry, 28 the Committee noted that “torture appears to occur particularly frequently following arbitrary arrests and is often carried out to obtain a confession or to punish and threaten political dissenters. Torture occurs in police stations, prisons, State security facilities, and Central Security Forces facilities. Torture is perpetrated by police officers, military officers, National Security officers and prison guards. However, prosecutors, judges and prison officials also facilitate torture by failing to curb practices of torture, arbitrary detention and ill-treatment 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 Kalinichenko v. Morocco, para. 15.3. General comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. Ibid., para. 50. A/HRC/33/51, annex II. See also footnotes 11 to 13 above. The Committee adopted its most recent concluding observations regarding Egypt on 14 November 2002 (CAT/C/CR/29/4). A/72/44, para. 61. GE.19-22535