CAT/C//37/D/265/2005** Page 8 complainant has sufficiently substantiated his claim for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. 11.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainant’s removal to Azerbaijan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 11.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Azerbaijan, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 11.4. The Committee recalls its General Comment No. 1, on the implementation of article 3, that “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable” (A/53/44, annex IX, para. 6). 11.5 The Committee notes that the State party has questioned the author’s credibility with regard to his position within ADP, his imprisonment and the State party’s responsibility for his torture, based on expert evidence obtained by its consular services in Ankara. This evidence included, inter alia, an interrogation of the ADP leader, Sardar Jalaloglu, while at prison, who declared not to know the author. The State party has further questioned the authenticity of the wanted notice allegedly issued by the Ministry of Internal Affairs, an incomplete copy of which was submitted by the complainant to the Swedish Migration Board. 11.6 Bearing in mind the above and in light of first hand information before the Committee, it notes that, although it is undisputed that the complainant was a member of ADP and that he was subjected to acts of torture in 2001 and 2002 as confirmed by the medical reports submitted by him, he has failed to provide evidence about his high position within the party or the conduct of any political activity of such significance that he would face foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture upon his return to Azerbaijan. The Committee further notes that the author has not been able to provide, as requested by the Committee, a full copy of the wanted notice presented to the Swedish Migration Board. Additionally, it notes that the notice presents numerous incoherences and does not reveal, in any case, that the complainant is being searched in Azerbaijan. The Committee considers that the complainant has failed to disprove the State party’s findings in this regard, and to validate