CAT/C/54/D/544/2013 substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.2 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey, 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 in Turkey. However, the question that needs to be determined is whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned. 9.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, in which it states that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to be shown to be highly probable, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof normally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk. The Committee also recalls that, as indicated in its general comment No. 1, while it gives considerable weight to the findings of the State party’s bodies, the Committee may freely assess the facts of each case in the light of the particular circumstances. 9.4 The Committee has noted the State party’s arguments that (1) the treatment suffered by the complainant did not extend beyond the problems typically experienced by the Kurdish population as a whole; and (2) that there is no temporal causal link between those events and his departure from Turkey in April 2007. The State party also maintains that diplomatic inquiries revealed that the complainant was not wanted by the police and does not appear on police records in Turkey. It concludes that the complainant was at liberty to move away from his native village in order to escape persecution. 9.5 The Committee has already noted in earlier jurisprudence that there are serious allegations that the Turkish security and police forces continue to use torture, particularly during questioning and in detention centres. 26 The State party had itself acknowledged, as illustrated in the recent jurisprudence of the Federal Administrative Court, that despite improvements in the overall human rights situation in Turkey, proven or suspected members of organizations such as the PKK are still at real risk of being persecuted, tortured or ill-treated. The Committee has taken note of the State party’s argument that the complainant was at liberty to move away from his native village to escape persecution. In this connection, the Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence, in which it found that the notion of “local danger” did not provide for measurable criteria and was not sufficient to dissipate totally the personal danger of being tortured to which the complainant is exposed. 27 9.6 With regard to the individual circumstances of the complainant, the Committee notes that his support for, and political activities within, the PKK and vario us other parties affiliated to it, including DEP, HADEP and DEHAP, are not in dispute; that the complainant’s arrest in 1981 and imprisonment until 1990, after being convicted of an “offence against the State”, are also not in dispute; and that the complai nant also alleges that he was subjected to torture in Diyarbakir prison following his arrest in 1981 (paras. 2.1 and 4.1). After his release in 1990, he was subjected to further short periods of detention, was persecuted during his military service, and wa s required to sign a register on a weekly basis until 1999 (paras. 2.2 and 2.5). 9.7 The Committee considers that the complainant has provided sufficient evidence to show that he may be arrested if returned to Turkey. The Committee also notes that __________________ 26 27 GE. 15-11119 See Aytulun Güclü v. Sweden, paragraph 7.6. See communication No. 338/2008, Mondal v. Sweden, decision adopted on 23 May 2011, paragraph 7.4. 11/12