CAT/C/63/D/703/2015 obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she 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 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. 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. 26 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the nonrefoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice in this context has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.27 Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: the complainant’s ethnic background; previous torture; incommunicado detention or other forms of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; and clandestine escape from the country of origin for threats of torture. 28 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to the findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 29 8.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present complaint, the Committee notes I.U.K.’s contention that he fears being detained and subjected to torture by the authorities or the insurgents in case of his return to Dagestan. The Committee also notes the complainants’ allegations that, prior to their arrival in Denmark, I.U.K. was detained and subjected to torture by police in Dagestan after having been threatened by insurgents into helping to buy food and medication for them on one occasion. The Committee further notes the complainants’ assertion that the authorities suspected I.U.K. of collaborating with the insurgents and that, therefore, he was unable to seek the authorities’ protection against the insurgents. 8.6 The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that its domestic authorities found that the complainants lacked credibility because their statements on crucial parts of their grounds for asylum appeared to be fabricated for the occasion, inconsistent and elaborated. In particular, the complainants made inconsistent and/or mutually inconsistent statements about: (a) their visas for Greece and Poland (see paras. 4.4 and 4.5 above); (b) R.R.K.’s telephone call in connection with I.U.K.’s fishing trip (see para. 4.6 above); (c) the reason why I.U.K. ended up staying with his brother-in-law and R.R.K.’s sister until his family’s departure from the Russian Federation (see para. 4.6 above); and (d) the reason given by I.U.K. to his spouse for their departure (see para. 4.7). The Committee further notes the Board’s conclusion that the complainants’ inconsistent statements on crucial elements of their grounds for asylum cannot be explained by the fact that they were in a 26 27 28 29 See T.M. v. Republic of Korea (CAT/C/53/D/519/2012), para. 9.3. General comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. Ibid., para. 50. 11