CAT/C/45/D/344/2008 subject is comparable to a coercive measure which would ultimately induce asylum-seekers to leave Switzerland. It also notes the State party’s argument that the emergency assistance, which is granted only on request, is designed to meet an individual’s basic needs, and that the obligation under article 3 is one of non-return (non-refoulement), not one of ensuring a high standard of living in the host country. In this case, the Committee considers that the complainant has not sufficiently substantiated his allegations under article 22 of the Convention. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Togo would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.2 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all relevant considerations, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of such assessment, however, is to determine whether the individual concerned would personally risk torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence in a country of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his or her return to that country. Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person may not be subjected to torture in his or her specific situation. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which states that the Committee must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of torture if returned to the country in question. The risk of torture need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has established in previous decisions that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.2 7.4 As to the burden of proof, the Committee again recalls its general comment and its case law, which provide that the burden is generally on the complainant to present an arguable case and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 7.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the case under consideration, the Committee has noted the complainant’s claim that he and his father saw soldiers throw bodies into the Bé lagoon. It also notes that two of the soldiers recognized them and started to chase them; that the complainant’s father was reportedly captured, while the complainant was apparently able to escape; and that his father’s beaten body was reportedly found some months after the events of 27 February 2005. The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that these events and the later raids on his home by soldiers in civilian clothes mean that returning to his country of origin would entail a risk for him. Lastly, the Committee notes the allegation that serious human rights problems continue to exist in Togo, and that those responsible for the violent acts committed during the 2005 elections are still at large. 2 8 Communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; communication No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6. GE.10-46944