CAT/C/48/D/343/2008 highly probable, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof normally falls upon the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. The Committee also recalls that, as set forth in its general comment No. 1 (1996),8 while it gives considerable weight to the findings of fact of the State party’s bodies, it is entitled freely to assess the facts of each case, taking into account the specific circumstances. 9.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s observations concerning the complainant’s lack of credibility, which are based, in particular, on the fact that contradictory information was submitted to the Canadian authorities regarding the length of his detention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, his communication with his codetainees, the money that he allegedly kept on his person, the manner in which he regained his freedom, his stay in Zambia before travelling to Canada, his father’s stay in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and other matters. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations concerning the fact that the complainant is not a member of a political party and that his parents have travelled to the Democratic Republic of the Congo several times without being troubled. 9.5 The Committee takes note of the difficult human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of the moratorium declared by Canada on the removal of rejected asylum seekers to that country. In this regard, the Committee notes the information submitted by the complainant, according to which the moratorium was put in place owing to the widespread violence existing in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the fact that the moratorium would not apply in his case because of his criminal record. The State party has not challenged this information. The Committee is of the view that this information points up the discretionary nature of the moratorium procedure, whereas, in the spirit of article 3 of the Convention, it is to be understood that a moratorium on the removal of persons who would be at risk in their country because of widespread violence should apply to everyone without distinction. 9.6 The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s claims regarding: (a) his detention and torture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in 2002; (b) the medical certificate issued in 2005, according to which, although the complainant bore little physical evidence of torture, this was not the case with regard to psychological effects, as he showed signs of post-traumatic stress disorder fully consistent with his account and appeared to have a reasonable fear of what might befall him should he be returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo;9 and (c) the view of the American judge who granted him protection under the Convention that there were substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the event of his return. 9.7 The Committee also takes note of the State party’s reference to reports dating from 2007 and 2008 that mention few cases of the torture of UPDS members or Luba from Kasaï. In this regard, the Committee is of the view that, even if cases of torture are rare, the risk of being subjected to torture continues to exist for the complainant, as he is the son of a UDPS leader, is a Luba from Kasaï and has already been the victim of violence during his detention in Kinshasa in 2002. In addition, the Committee considers that the State party’s argument that the complainant could resettle in Kinshasa, where the Luba do not seem to be threatened by violence (as they are in the Katanga region), does not entirely remove the personal danger for the complainant. In this regard, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with its jurisprudence, the notion of “local danger” does not provide for 8 9 GE.12-43835 Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44). See communication No. 374/2009, S.M. et al. v. Sweden, decision of 21 November 2011, paragraph 9.7. 13