CAT/C/71/D/908/2019 he is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention if returned to Afghanistan fails to rise to the minimum level of substantiation required for the purpose of admissibility. 9 4.2 Based on the jurisprudence of the Committee, the State party argues that, in order to determine whether the forcible return of the complainant to Afghanistan would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: (a) the general human rights situation in Afghanistan; and (b) the personal, foreseeable and real risk of the complainant being subjected to torture following his return there – as the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. 10 4.3 The State party also submits that the burden of proof in cases such as the present one rests with the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected to torture. In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present.11 4.4 Regarding the general human rights situation in Afghanistan, the State party asserts that the situation there has not been deemed such that there is a general need to protect all asylum seekers, though it does not underestimate the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the human rights situation in Afghanistan. 12 The assessment before the Committee must focus on the foreseeable consequences of the complainant’s expulsion to Afghanistan in the light of his personal circumstances, just like the Swedish migration authorities’ assessments in the present case. 4.5 In regard to the risk of the complainant being subjected to treatment in breach of article 3 of the Convention, the State party argues, first of all, that the Aliens Act and its application reflect the principle of article 3 of the Convention and that the domestic authorities are in a good position to assess the information submitted by an asylum seeker and to appraise the credibility of his or her statements and claims. In this regard, the State party underlines that in the present case, both the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court have conducted thorough examinations of the complainant’s case. 4.6 The State party submits that the complainant has had ample opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of his claim and to argue his case, orally as well as in writing, before the Swedish Migration Agency and before the Migration Court. On 2 February 2017, the Agency held an extensive asylum investigation with the complainant, which lasted for more than three hours. Furthermore, upon appeal, the Migration Court held an oral hearing with the complainant. The investigations and the hearing were conducted in the presence of the complainant’s public counsel, and interpreters, to whom the complainant confirmed that he understood well. The minutes from the investigations were thereafter communicated to the public counsel. Through his public counsel, the complainant has been invited to scrutinize and submit written observations on the minutes from the interviews conducted, and to make written submissions and appeals. 4.7 The State party thus holds that it must be considered that the Swedish Migration Agency and the Migration Court have had sufficient information and documentation in the 9 10 11 12 4 H.I.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/30/D/216/2002), para. 6.2. E.J.V.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/31/D/213/2002), para. 8.3; and, for a more recent reference, A.B. v. Sweden (CAT/C/54/D/539/2013), para. 7.3. Committee against Torture, H.O. v. Sweden, communication No. 178/2001, para. 13; A.R. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/31/D/203/2002), para. 7.3; Kalonzo v. Canada (CAT/C/48/D/343/2008), para. 9.3; and X v. Denmark (CAT/C/53/D/458/2011), para. 9.3. The State party cites numerous sources of country information of Afghanistan, including the European Asylum Support Office, the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, the United States Department of State, the Home Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Commission on International Religious Freedom.