CAT/C/60/D/639/2014 the country to which he or she would be returned. 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; and 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. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable” (para. 6), the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by the organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, under article 22 (4) of the Convention, to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case. 43 7.5 The Committee notes that State party’s authorities determined that the complainant had failed to credibly demonstrate that he was originally from North Darfur, and that his allegations regarding the violent death of his father had been partly contradictory and inaccurate. In that regard, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that he provided information to the best of his knowledge and that the State party did not take into consideration his young age at the time of the events, and his low level of education. The Committee also notes that the State party considers that neither the “confirmation of residence” delivered by a local authority in Kutum, nor the translated marriage certificate, constitute a valid piece of evidence as these types of document could be purchased easily in the Sudan. The Committee notes that the State party does not provide any evidence in that regard, and considers that such affirmation is not sufficient to question the credibility of the complainant. In addition, the Committee considers that no due consideration has been given by the State party to the fact that the author had to escape a conflict area and therefore had no access to other official documents. The Committee therefore considers that the complainant has submitted sufficient elements to suggest that he is originally from North Darfur, and that he fled the Sudan to escape the civil war in Darfur. 7.6 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s submission that he is an active member of the Justice and Equality Movement and that he has participated in several meetings and protests rallies against the Government of the Sudan in Geneva and Zurich, during which he chanted slogans against the regime. It notes that the complainant was photographed during those events together with members of the Justice and Equality Movement. It also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant does not have a prominent political profile that would make him a target of persecution by the Sudanese authorities. It observes that the State party’s authorities determined that, based on his political activities in Switzerland, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the complainant is under risk of suffering treatment that would violate the Convention in case of return to the Sudan. 7.7 However, the Committee notes that the NGO representative present at the interview of 17 December 2013 in the context of the asylum request procedure of the author concluded that the evidence submitted by the complainant to confirm his political activities in Switzerland had not been “sighted or discussed in detail” during the interview. In that connection, the Committee considers that the arguments submitted by the State party do not enable the Committee to conclude that the participation of the complainant in a meeting between the Justice and Equality Movement and Geneva Call, where he was photographed, may not have attracted the attention of the Sudanese authorities, particularly taking into account that both organizations have been working together on issues of interest to the 43 10 See, inter alia, communication No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision dated 14 May 2014, para. 8.3.