CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 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. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable” (para. 6), but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.15 The Committee further recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the burden to present an arguable case is on the complainant (para. 5). In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant’s claim that she would run a risk of being tortured if she is returned to Turkey is based on the following: she had been detained and tortured in 1998; she had been subjected to short-term arrests when visiting her sister in prison; ever since her sister had fled the country in 2002, she had been under surveillance and subjected to harassment, intimidation and detention because of her sister’s political activities and because of suspicion that she had made use of her physical resemblance to facilitate her sister’s escape from Turkey; her own activities within the Mesopotamia Cultural Centre in Istanbul; and the risk of family persecution she runs on account of her close family relationship with her sister. 7.4 The Committee notes that, while the complainant’s arrest and ill-treatment in 1998 is uncontested, the State party argues that the complainant failed to establish a link between those events and her departure from Turkey in 2008. Furthermore, the State party finds exaggerated the alleged uninterrupted harassment and surveillance by Turkish authorities for years, including after the complainant’s sister fled the country in 2002, and argues that the authorities would have taken other measures had she been of interest to them. 7.5 The Committee recalls that under the terms of its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned,16 while at the same time it 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. 7.6 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s arrest and ill-treatment in 1998 and of the allegation that she suffers from mental health problems because of ill-treatment in the past and the continuous harassment and persecution by the Turkish authorities. In this regard, the Committee observes that the complainant submits as documentary evidence a confirmation by the TOVAH Rehabilitation Centre that she has been under treatment from 2002 to 2006, as well as a medical report dated 23 August 2010 issued by a Swiss psychiatrist who, inter alia, refers to a suspected post-traumatic stress disorder. The Committee further notes the State party’s arguments that the complainant has not invoked her mental health problems during the asylum proceedings, that the alleged origin of these problems is not proven, that a suspected post-traumatic stress disorder cannot be considered an important indication of her persecution in Turkey, and that treatment for her condition is available in Turkey. 7.7 The Committee recalls that the ill-treatment or torture suffered in the past is only one element to be taken into account, the relevant question before the Committee being whether the complainant currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Turkey. While it is accepted that she was tortured in the past, it does not necessarily follow that, 15 years after the events occurred, she would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to 15 16 14 See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3; No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6; No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.4. See, inter alia, N.S. v. Switzerland, para. 7.3.