CAT/C/53/D/450/2011 has exhausted all available domestic remedies. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Yemen would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return 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. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is returned to Yemen. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 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 is to determine whether the individual concerned would personally run 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 personally be at risk. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable” (para. 6), the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she personally faces a real and foreseeable 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 organs of the State party concerned, while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided for in article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in each case. 7.4 In the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s allegations concerning the risk of persecution that he would face in the event of deportation to Yemen because of his caste. The Committee is concerned about reports of persistent discrimination and marginalization against the Akhdam community in Yemen, but notes that this factor in itself is not enough to demonstrate that the complainant faces a real, foreseeable and personal risk of being subjected to torture. 7.5 As regards the complainant’s political activities, the Committee takes note of his allegations concerning his political involvement with the Southern Democratic Assembly. The complainant maintains that he is now a leader of the movement in Switzerland and has participated in meetings and demonstrations. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s allegations regarding the seriousness of the human rights violations perpetrated against political opponents in Yemen, whether they are leaders or simple activists. At the same time, the Committee takes note of the State party’s doubts about the complainant’s political involvement, which he raised belatedly, following the rejection of his second application for asylum to the Federal Office for Migration. The Committee points out that the complainant did not indicate that he was politically active before leaving his country of origin and that his political activities in Switzerland are of a limited nature. The Committee considers that the complainant has not provided sufficient evidence to show that he was conducting political activities in Switzerland of such importance as to attract the attention of the Yemeni authorities. Nor has he put forward other evidence that would 10 GE.15-00369