test is an individual one, so, the absence of a consistent pattern of violations does not mean that a person is individually free from risk.230 Thus, it is not permissible for a State to take decisions entirely based on lists of ‘safe’ countries or any other criterion which would preclude individual consideration.231 UN TREATY BODIES The burden to present an arguable case is on the author of a communication,232 although the State is required to make available to the CAT all relevant and necessary information.233 The author must provide a minimum level of substantiation for the complaint to be admissible.234 The Committee “considers that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture,”235 but serious and material inconsistencies will generally lead to the rejection of the submission.236 Where the author provides a sufficient level of credible detail, it is possible for the burden of proof to be reversed. In A.S. v Sweden, the Committee was of the view that “the author has submitted sufficient details regarding her sighe or mutah marriage and alleged arrest, such as names of persons, their positions, dates, addresses, name of police station, etc., that could have, and to a certain extent have been, verified by the Swedish immigration authorities, to shift the burden of proof.”237 In that case, the Swedish authorities had not made sufficient efforts to determine whether there were substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture, and so any forcible return of the author to Iran, or to any other country where she ran a risk of being expelled or returned to Iran, would breach Article 3 UNCAT. 1 As was seen in section 1.2.2, State parties to the UNCAT are obliged to conduct an effective investigation into allegations of past violations. However, as the Committee observed in Agiza v Sweden, “The nature of refoulement is such… that an allegation of breach… relates to a future expulsion or removal; accordingly, the right to an effective remedy contained in article 3 requires, in this context, an opportunity for effective, independent and impartial review of the Khan v Canada (1994), op. cit., §12.2. See, for example, CAT, Concluding Observations on Finland, UN Doc. A/51/44, 1996, §62. CAT, General Comment No. 1, 1997, §5. This has been affirmed in the Committee’s jurisprudence. See, for example, Zare v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 256/2004, 17 May 2006, §9.5; M.A.K. v Germany, CAT Communication No. 214/2002, 14 May 2004, §13.5; S.L. v Sweden, Communication No. 150/1999, 11 May 2001, §6.4. 233 Article 22(4) UNCAT. See also Agiza v Sweden (2005), op. cit., §13.10. 234 Y v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 18/1994, 17 November 1994, §4.2. 235 Kisoki v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 41/1996, 8 May 1996, §9.3. See also, for example, Tala v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 43/1996, 15 November 1996, §10.3; C.T. and K.M. v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 279/2005, 17 November 2006, §7.6. 236 See H.K.H. v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 204/2002, 19 November 2002. 237 A.S. v Sweden (2000), op. cit., §8.6. 230 231 232 49