CAT/C/48/D/370/2009 complainant’s allegation is based on the risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 1 of the Convention, on the basis of a wide range of factors such as the risk of being targeted by criminal gangs, the risk of treatment contrary to article 1 while in detention, his state of health and the general situation prevailing in Haiti. The Committee considers that these allegations are closely bound up with the merits. The Committee therefore declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee must determine whether, in deporting the complainant to Haiti, the State party failed in its obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or 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 Without prejudice to its possible findings in this case, the Committee notes the information provided by the complainant that the State party declared a moratorium on the removal of Haitian nationals to their country of origin, but that it excluded persons who, such as the complainant, had criminal records. The State party has not challenged this information. The Committee recalls that under article 3 of the Convention, a moratorium on the removal of persons to countries in crisis should apply to everyone, without any distinction.16 8.4 In assessing the complainant’s allegations under article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of such assessment, however, is to determine whether the complainant would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture in Haiti. It follows that the existence in that country of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not in itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if expelled to that country. Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.17 In considering the risk, the Committee will give considerable weight, pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned. However, the Committee is not bound by such findings, and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 8.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, which states that while it is not necessary to demonstrate that the risk of torture is highly probable, the risk must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has established in previous decisions that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.18 As to the burden of proof, the Committee 16 17 18 GE.12-43638 Concluding observations, Canada, CAT/C/CR/34/CAN, paras. 4 (d) and 5 (b). Communication No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; see also communication No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and communication No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. Communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. the Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; communication No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; communication No. 350/2008, R.T-N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 3 June 2011, para. 8.4. 11