must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim is to establish whether the individual concerned would be at personal risk of torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. In accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the person in question would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to that country. Nor does the absence of such a situation mean that a person cannot be considered at risk of being subjected to torture. 6.3 The Committee recalls its general comment on article 3, which states that the Committee must assess whether there are “substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of torture” if returned, and that the risk of torture “must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion”. The risk involved need not be “highly probable”, but it must be “personal and present”.q In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has consistently determined that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.r 6.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been detained and tortured previously by the Turkish authorities. However, the alleged acts of torture occurred in 1995. The Committee notes that, in accordance with its general comment on article 3, information which is considered pertinent to risk of torture includes whether the complainant has been tortured in the past, and if so, whether this was in the recent past. The incidents referred to took place nine years ago, a lapse of time which cannot be described as recent. 6.5 The Committee must also consider whether the complainant has engaged in any political or other activity within or outside his own country which would make him particularly vulnerable to any risk of torture upon return to Turkey. In relation to his activities inside Turkey, the complainant’s political activities included collecting money and food for displaced Kurdish villagers. Although he claims to have been detained on two occasions, the complainant does not establish that he was in fact, or was regarded by the Turkish authorities as, a significant Kurdish opposition figure. Nor does he allege to have had any special role within the relevant organizations. As to his activities abroad, the complainant has listed instances of participation in political activities and meetings. Some of these are referred to in very general terms, although particular reference is made to the complainant’s participation in the occupation of the Greek ambassador’s residence in The Hague in 1999. However, it has not been established that the Turkish authorities are aware of the complainant’s participation in this event or any of the other matters referred to. The Committee notes in this regard that proceedings against the author in connection with the occupation of the residence in The Hague were discontinued for lack of evidence. Nor has it been established that, if the Turkish authorities were indeed aware of these actions, this would place the complainant at particular risk of torture upon his return to Turkey. 6.6 The relevant evidence regarding the complainant’s history in Turkey, together with his activities inside and outside Turkey, has been considered by the Dutch authorities. The Committee is not in a position to challenge their findings of fact, nor to resolve the question of whether there were inconsistencies in the complainant’s account. Consistent with the Committee’s case law, due weight must be accorded to findings of fact made by government authorities. 6.7 In light of the foregoing, the Committee finds that the complainant has not established that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the event of his return to Turkey, within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 7. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the removal of the complainant to Turkey would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. Notes Communication No. 148/1999 Submitted by:A.K. Alleged victim:The complainant State party:Australia Date of complaint:13 October 1999 (initial submission) The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 5 May 2004, Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 148/1999, submitted to the Committee against Torture by A.K. under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Having taken into account all information made available to it by the author of the complaint, his counsel and the State party, Adopts the following decision under article 22 of the Convention. 1.1 The complainant is A.K., a Sudanese national, currently detained at the Immigration Detention Centre, New South Wales. He claims that his forcible return to Sudan would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment by Australia. The complainant was initially represented by counsel.a 1.2 On 1 November 1999, the State party was requested, pursuant to rule 108, paragraph 9, of the Committee’s rules of procedure,