The CAT further specified that a finding of substantial grounds for believing that an individual would be in danger of being subjected to torture requires that the risk of torture “be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.”217 The risk need not be “highly probable,” but must be “personal and present.”218 To be present, the risk must be linked to current public officials, or persons acting in an official capacity. Thus, in A.D. v the Netherlands, allegations that the author had been tortured by a previous government were insufficient to show a present risk given the intervening shift in political power.219 Where an author has been subjected to torture in the recent past, this will generally be taken into account.220 However, when a long period of time has elapsed, the Committee may find that a risk is no longer present, whether or not the government has changed in the intervening period.221 1 UN TREATY BODIES not encompass other forms of ill-treatment.214 The reference to “another State” includes both the State to which the individual is being expelled, returned or extradited and any other State to which he or she may subsequently be expelled, returned or extradited.215 Pursuant to Article 1, only human rights violations by, at the instigation of, or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity will be considered as relevant under Article 3.216 The Committee will take into account any findings of fact by the domestic courts, but does not consider itself bound by any such findings; it may make its own “free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in CAT, General Comment No. 1, 1997, §1. See also, for example, B.S. v Canada, CAT Communication No.166/2000, 14 November 2001, §7.4. CAT, General Comment No. 1, 1997, §2. 216 Ibid. §3. See also the discussion of the “official capacity” requirement in section 1.2.1, and, for example, K.K. v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 186/2001, 11 November 2003, §6.8; G.R.B. v Sweden (1998), op. cit., §6.7. 217 CAT, General Comment No. 1, 1997, §6. 218 Ibid. §6–7. 219 A.D. v the Netherlands, CAT Communication No. 96/1997, 12 November 1999, §7.4. See also M.M.K. v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 221/2002, 3 May 2005, §8.6; S.A. v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 243/2004, 6 May 2005, §4.2; T.M. v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 228/2003, 18 November 2003, §7.3. Such changes will not, however, preclude the finding of a violation where the risk continues, as was the case in T.A. v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 226/2003, 6 May 2005 (at §7.3). 220 CAT, General Comment No. 1, 1997, §8(b). 221 See, for example, X, Y and Z v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 61/1996, 6 May 1998, §11.2; H.A.D. v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 126/1999, 10 May 2000, §8.6; S.S. v Netherlands, CAT Communication No. 191/2001, 5 May 2003, §6.6; A.I. v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 182/2001, 12 May 2004, §6.5-6.7; S.S.S. v Canada, CAT Communication No. 245/2004, 16 November 2005, §8.4; N.Z.S. v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 277/2005, 22 November 2006, §8.5. 214 215 47