CAT/C/54/D/542/2013 Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 11.2 The Committee must determine whether the extradition of the complainant to Uzbekistan constituted a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee takes a decision on the question in the light of the information, which the authorities of the State party had or should have had at the time of the extradition. Subsequent events are useful for assessing the information that the State party actually had or should have had at the time of extradition. 11.3 In assessing whether the extradition of the complainant to Uzbekistan constitutes a violation of the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention, 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. The Committee reiterates 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. Similarly, 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 that, in its general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, it noted 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”, but it must be personal and present (para. 6). In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. 11.5 With regard to the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass human rights violations, the Committee recalls its concluding observations on the third periodic report of Uzbekistan, in which it expressed its concern about numerous, ongoing and consistent allegations of the routine use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment by law enforcement and investigative officials or with their instigation or consent, and that persons who sought refuge abroad and were returned to the country had been kept in detention in unknown places and possibly subjected to breaches of the rights protected by the Convention (see CAT/C/UZB/CO/3, paras. 6 and 9). 11.6 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim, supported by reliable international reports, that use of torture and ill-treatment in Uzbekistan is systematic, in particular towards people whose political opinion differs from the official government policy, and that complaining to the Committee on behalf of his brother could be seen by the Uzbek authorities as a protest against the official government policy and would put the complainant at a personal risk of persecution and torture. The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that the complainant’s extradition was requested on the basis of a conviction for a criminal offence of a non-political nature and that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence of a risk of being subjected to torture owing to belonging to any particular group. The Committee also notes the argument made by the State party’s authorities during the asylum and extradition proceedings that the complainant’s motive for seeking asylum was to avoid serving a sentence for the criminal offence committed in Uzbekistan and their reliance on the diplomatic assurances provided by the Uzbek authorities that the complainant will not be subjected to persecution or torture if returned. 9