UN TREATY BODIES 1 every case.”222 The risk to which the author may be exposed will be assessed at the time of consideration of the complaint, so the CAT may consider elements which have come to light since the initial submission was made.223 In assessing the risk, the Committee may consider whether the State to which the individual is to be returned is itself a party to the UNCAT, or whether it allows for individual complaints to be made to the Committee.224 Where expulsion has already occurred, the Committee will take its decision in light of the information which the authorities of the State party had or should have had in their possession at the time of the expulsion.225 If a State party expels a person in the period between submission of the complaint and its consideration by the CAT, this may in itself amount to a violation of the Convention.226 The CAT has developed substantial jurisprudence on the requirement that the risk of torture be “foreseeable, real and personal.”227 Thus, “the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.”228 Furthermore, it is not sufficient for an author to show that he or she risks being tortured in one particular region of a State if expulsion to another region is possible and would not entail a risk of torture.229 The CAT, General Comment No. 1, 1997, §9. See, for example, Attia v Sweden (2003), op. cit., §12.1, referring to H.M.H.I. v Australia (2002), op. cit. 224 See, for example, Khan v Canada, CAT Communication No. 15/1994, 15 November 1994, §12.5; Korban v Sweden, CAT Communication No. 88/1997, 16 November 1998; Attia v Sweden (2003), §12.3. The CAT revisited this aspect of its decision from Attia v Sweden (2003) in the subsequent case Agiza v Sweden (2005), which concerned Ms Attia’s husband. It indicated that, given information which had come to light in the intervening period regarding Egypt’s non-respect of diplomatic assurances, the original case might have been decided differently. See Agiza v Sweden (2005), op. cit., §13.5. 225 See, for example, Agiza v Sweden (2005), op. cit., §13.2; Tebourski v France, CAT Communication No. 300/2006, 1 May 2007, §8.1. 226 See, for example, Brada v France, CAT Communication No. 195/2002, 17 May 2005. This case also makes clear that applicants should not be deported prior to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, §13.5. 227 A.R. v the Netherlands, CAT Communication No. 203/2002, 21 November 2003, §7.3. See also S.P.A. v Canada, CAT Communication No. 282/2005, 7 November 2006, §7.2. 228 Khan v Canada (1994), op. cit., §12.2. See also, for example, Mutombo v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 13/1993, 27 April 1994, §9.3; E.A. v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 28/1995, 10 November 1997, §11.2; N. P. v Australia, CAT Communication No. 106/1998, 6 May 1999, §6.4; S.S.H. v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 254/2004, 15 November 2005, §6.3; El Rgeig v Switzerland, CAT Communication No. 280/2005, 15 November 2006, §7.4. 229 B.S.S. v Canada, CAT Communication No. 183/2001, 12 May 2004, §11.5. See also H.M.H.I. v Australia (2002), op. cit., §6.6. 222 223 48