CAT/C/66/D/729/2016 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. 8 9.4 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 Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in the case of his or her deportation. 9.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that the family of the deceased police officer have declared a blood feud with him, that he attempted mediation, which was unsuccessful, and that he is afraid of being persecuted and tortured. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that it accepts the fact of the blood feud as true, and that it also admits that the authorities in the Russian Federation cannot afford protection of the complainant in such cases. The Committee further notes the State party’s arguments that the threats emanate from non-State actors, further suggesting that the complainant should make use of a well-accepted practice of the internal flight alternative to settle in other regions of the Russian Federation than Chechnya, without specifying the region. 9.6 The Committee notes that, based on the assumption that an internal flight alternative was available to the complainant, the State party did not fully examine his claims regarding potential threats posed by his past activities, including the declaration of the blood feud. The Committee recalls, in this context, that the internal flight or relocation alternative does not represent a reliable and durable alternative where the lack of protection is generalized and the individual concerned would be exposed to a further risk of persecution or serious harm.9 Also acting on the assumption of the possible flight alternative, the State party failed to give due determination to the certificate presented by the complainant that he is wanted by the Russian authorities, calling it “simple in nature”. 9.7 Furthermore, the Committee recalls that, according to paragraph 30 of its general comment No. 4, States parties should refrain from deporting individuals to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being tortured or subjected to other ill-treatment at the hands of non-State entities, including groups that are unlawfully exercising actions that inflict severe pain or suffering for purposes prohibited by the Convention and over which the receiving State has no or only partial de facto control, or whose acts it is unable to prevent or whose impunity it is unable to counter. The Committee considers that the so-called “internal flight alternative”, that is, the deportation of a person or a victim of torture to an area of a State where the person would not be exposed to torture, unlike in other areas of the same State, is not reliable or effective.10 The Committee therefore considers that, by rejecting the complainant’s asylum applications on the basis of the assumption of availability of an internal flight alternative and without giving sufficient weight to whether the complainant and his children could be at risk of persecution from non-State entities over which the State has no or only partial de facto control, the State party failed in its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. 8 9 10 M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 7.3 Mondal v. Sweden (CAT/C/46/D/338/2008), para. 7.4; M.K.M. v. Australia (CAT/C/60/D/681/2015), para. 8.9; and general comment No. 4, para. 47. General comment No. 4, para. 47. 7