CAT/C/56/D/562/2013 Consideration of the merits 10.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 10.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainant to Uganda would constitute a violation of the State party’s 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. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Uganda. 22 In assessing that 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 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 subject to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 23 10.3 In the present case, the Committee notes the argument of the State party that the complainant has failed to substantiate that he faces a real and personal risk of torture in Uganda. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the complainant’s allegations were not credible regarding central aspects of his claim related to the risks he would be exposed to if returned to Uganda owing to his sexual orientation, including his allegations related to his arrest and torture inflicted in 2007, as well as the allegations related to the recent interest shown by the Ugandan authorities regarding his whereabouts in relation to the charges brought against him for “having carnal knowledge against nature”. The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that the Canadian authorities did not give sufficient consideration to or properly analyse his claims, including the new pieces of evidence related to the criminal procedures against him based on charges related to his sexual orientation. 10.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected from victims of torture.24 The Committee finds it impossible to verify the authenticity of some of the documents provided by the complainant. However, in view of the reliable documentation he has provided, including a supporting letter from the Uganda Human Rights Commission, the Local Council of Kafero Zone, an attestation from the Gay and Lesbian Association in Uganda and a medical report, the Committee considers that the complainant has provided sufficient reliable information for the burden of proof to shift. 25 10.5 The Committee notes that the State party has acknowledged that the situation of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons in Uganda is problematic and that it worsened after the Anti-Homosexuality Act was adopted. The Committee also notes that, despite the fact that the Anti-Homosexuality Act was nullified by the Constitutional Court 22 23 24 25 See, for example, communications No. 61/1996, X, Y and Z v. Sweden, decision adopted on 6 May 1998, para. 11.2; and No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision of 14 November 2012, para. 7.7. See communications No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010, para. 7.2; and No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, para. 7.3. See communications No. 416/2010, Ke Chun Rong v. Australia, decision adopted on 5 November 2012, para. 7.5; and No. 21/1995 Alan v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 May 1996, para. 11.3. See communication No. 185/2001, Karoui v. Sweden, decision adopted on 8 May 2002, para. 10. 11