Migratieweb ve15002236 Advance unedited version CAT/C/56/D/569/2013 Consideration of the merits 8.1 Ih accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned. The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to 8.2 Guinea would violate the State party's obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) a person to another State where thereare 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 would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Guinea. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to artic1e 3, paragraph 2, öf the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, theexistence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or massv,iolations of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country. The aim of such a determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk ofbeing subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 8.3 The Committee observes that it expressed its concerns "by credible reports of acts of . torture and ill-treatment practised in such places as facilities for the deprivation of liberty and especially in gendarmeries and military detention camps,,11 in its recently adopted concluding Qbservations following the examination, in May 2014, .of the country situation in Guinea, in the absence of a State party' s report. In those same concluding observations, the Committee noted the "slow pace" with which Guinea is working "to determine responsibility for the acts of torture, summary executions, rapes, sexual abuse, instanc~s of sexual- slavery, arrests, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances perpetrated during those events by law enforcement officers,,12 regarding the events that took place on 28 September 2009 at the Conakry Stadium. 8.4 The Committee also 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. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being "highly probable~' (pa:a. 6), the Committee notes that the' burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces' a foreseeable, real and persbnal risk 13 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it givesconsiderable 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 by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case (para. 9). 8.5 The Committeetakes note of the medical evidence presented by the complainant, particularly a report dated 14 September 2011 by Amnesty International' s Medical Examination Group, and .a letter from the' mstitute for Human Rights and Medical Assessment dated 12 December 2012. The complainant also submitted a letter with findings of his psychiatric examinatîon. The conclusion of these reports is that the scars on the complainant's body are consistent or very consistent with a pattern of abuse allegedly 11 Committee against Torture, Concluding observations on Guinea in the absence ofits initial report, 12 13 adopted on 20 June 2014 (CAT/C/GIN/COIl), para. 9. Ibid, para. 10. , . See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, and No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. 9 Bron: www.ohchr.org - Stichting Migratierecht Nederland - www.migratieweb.nl