CAT/C/65/D/758/2016 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. 9.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement 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 he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.53 It also recalls that the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is to say, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. However, when complainants are in a situation where they cannot elaborate on their case, the burden of proof is reversed and the State party concerned must investigate the allegations and verify the information on which the communication is based. 54 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. 55 9.6 The Committee also recalls that States parties should consider whether the nature of the other forms of ill-treatment that a person facing deportation is at risk of experiencing might change so as to constitute torture, before examining the question of nonrefoulement. 56 Severe pain or suffering cannot always be assessed objectively in this context. It depends on the negative physical and/or mental repercussions that the infliction of violent or abusive acts has on the individual concerned, taking into account all relevant circumstances of each case, including the nature of the treatment, the sex, age and state of health and vulnerability of the victim and any other status or factors. 57 9.7 In this case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that, if deported to Italy, he would probably have no access to accommodation or to specialized medical and psychiatric treatment, all of which he requires as a victim of torture. The complainant has provided extensive reports describing the largely deficient reception conditions for asylum seekers in Italy. These include the insufficient capacity of accommodation centres for asylum seekers, including Dublin returnees, the deficient living conditions in those centres, and the very limited access to medical and specialized psychiatric treatment for asylum seekers. This situation is compounded by the lack of adequate procedures to systematically identify victims of torture. Although the State party has stated that it would inform the Italian authorities of the complainant’s health condition before proceeding with his deportation, the Committee notes that the request from the Swiss authorities under the Dublin II Regulation, dated 27 September 2012, did not include any information on the complainant’s health or on the care he required and did not identify the complainant as a victim of torture. 9.8 Although the Federal Administrative Tribunal did not contest that the complainant had been subjected to torture and conceded that his state of health required a rather complex course of medicinal treatment, as well as support measures, it considered that it did not have sufficient information to establish that Italy would refuse to provide the complainant with adequate medical care. It also considered that the complainant had failed to demonstrate in a concrete manner that he would face a situation of severe precariousness and material hardship or that he would be permanently deprived of adequate assistance from State or private institutions. 9.9 The Committee considers that the State party had a duty to undertake an individualized assessment of the personal and real risk that the complainant would face in 53 54 55 56 57 GE.19-01969 General comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. Ibid., para. 28, in conjunction with para. 16. Ibid., para. 17. 13