CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 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. 8.4 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 or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk. Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9). 8.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s contention that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he will be persecuted and tortured if returned to Afghanistan, by members of the Taliban or by the authorities, owing to the conflict between his father and a high-ranking Taliban officer and the fact that the complainant has already been harassed, threatened and attacked for those reasons in the past. In this regard, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegations that, upon his return to Afghanistan in 2008, he, his father and his brother were all assaulted by armed Taliban members in their home and were taken to the basement of the building where they were ill-treated and tortured. As a result of the physical abuse, his right leg was broken and his left arm was burned by hot water. The complainant’s father was taken away and has not been seen since. The complainant and his brother then managed to escape to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 8.6 The Committee notes that the Danish Refugee Appeals Board rejected the complainant’s asylum claim on 25 July 2012, concluding that his statements were not convincing and seemed to be non-credible, unlikely and somewhat inconsistent, particularly regarding his statements about his conflict with the high-ranking Taliban officer, S., the allegedly inflicted abuses and the exact circumstances of the escape. 8.7 The Committee notes that, although the Board refused to carry out a specialized medical examination to verify whether the complainant’s injuries had been sustained as a result of torture, the Board did reopen the case on 17 September 2015 with a view to reconsidering the credibility of the complainant’s statement in the light of the new results from a medical examination conducted by the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group. The Committee underlines the importance of medical examinations carried out by independent institutions, including the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group. It also notes the State party’s observation that this medical examination “does not necessarily clarify whether the complainant’s injury was caused by torture or whether the injury was sustained in an incident such as a fight, an assault, an accident or an act of war”. The Committee also notes that, following a thorough evaluation of all the evidence presented by the complainant, including the medical report of the Amnesty International Danish Medical Group, the competent authorities found the complainant to lack credibility and did not consider it necessary to order a further medical examination. 18 The Committee refers to its jurisprudence in which it concluded that the responsible organs of the State party had thoroughly evaluated all the evidence presented by the complainant and found it to lack credibility.19 In the light of these considerations, the Committee finds that the complainant has not demonstrated that the authorities of the State party that considered the case have failed to conduct a proper assessment of the risk of torture for the complainant in Afghanistan. 8.8 The Committee refers to the fact that the complainant returned to Afghanistan voluntarily in 2014, and is of the opinion that this factor further weakens the complainant’s argument for his asylum claim. The Committee also notes that the Board found the complainant’s claims about this return to Afghanistan not to be credible, as he had made numerous inconsistent statements. The Committee also notes that, when considering the 18 19 10 See Nicmeddin Alp v. Denmark. See Z. v. Denmark, para. 7.5.