CAT/C/56/D/565/2013 Russian Federation. Strict proof is neither reasonable nor necessary. As explained in the complaint of 11 November 2013, the situation of persecution described by the complainants is too distinctive to have been invented in such detail. Furthermore, there is undeniably no indication that in the meantime the human rights situation in the Russian Federation has improved, or any prospect that it might improve in the future — quite the contrary. As requested, the complainants should not be returned to the Russian Federation. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the communication. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The Committee must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Russian Federation. In assessing this risk, the Committee must, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim is to establish whether the individuals concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which they 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 of itself 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 individuals concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of huma n rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.4 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 and reiterates 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 “highly probable” (para. 6), it must nonetheless be real and personal. The Committee recalls that the burden of proof normally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she runs a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. It further recalls that, in accordance with this general comment, considerable weight will be given to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, but that it is not bound by such findings and instead __________________ 4 GE.16-01900 See for example communication No. 490/2012, E.K.W. v. Finland, decision adopted on 4 May 2015, para. 9.3. 9/10