Advance unedited version other illegal practices committed by public officials, the prosecution of public officials allegedly responsible for acts of torture and other ill-treatment and their punishment commensurate with the gravity of the crime committed when they are found guilty. 93 49. All pertinent information may be introduced by both parties to explain the relevance of their submissions under Article 22 to the provisions of Article 3 of the Convention. The following information, while not exhaustive, would be pertinent: (a) Is the State concerned one in which there is evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights? (b) Has the complainant been tortured or ill-treated by or at the instigation of or with the consent or the acquiescence (tacit agreement) of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity in the past? If so, was this a recent past? (c) Is there medical or psychological or other independent evidence to support a claim by the complainant that he/she has been tortured or ill-treated in the past? Has the torture had after-effects? (d) Has the State party ensured that the complainant facing deportation from the territory under its jurisdiction or control or authority, has had access to all legal and/or administrative guarantees and safeguards provided by law and, in particular, to an independent medical examination to assess his/her claims that he/she has previously suffered torture or ill-treatment in his/her country of origin? (e) Is there any credible allegation or evidence that the complainant and/or other person’s next of kin have been or will be threatened or exposed to reprisals or other forms of sanctions amounting to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in connection with the communication submitted to the Committee? (f) Has the author engaged in political or other activities within or outside the State concerned which would appear to make him/her vulnerable to the risk of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited to the State in question? (g) If returned to the State to which he/she is being deported, is the complainant at risk of further deportation to another State where he/she would face the risk of being subjected to torture? (h) Bearing in mind the status of physical and psychological fragility encountered by the majority of complainants such as asylum seekers, former detainees, victims of torture or sexual violence etc., which is conducive to some inconsistencies and/or lapses of memory in their submissions, is there any evidence as to the credibility of the complainant? (i) Taking into account some inconsistencies that may exist in the presentation of the facts, has the complainant demonstrated a general veracity of his/her claims? 94 XI. Independence of assessment of the Committee 50. The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned;95 however, it is not bound by such findings. It follows that it will make 93 94 95 16 See e.g. Concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic report of Argentina (CAT/C/ARG/CO/5-6), paras. 9-10, 11-12 and 30; and Concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Bulgaria (CAT/C/BGR/CO/6), paras. 7-8 and 11-12. See e.g. S.P.A. v. Canada, decision of 7 November 2006, para. 7.5. See e.g. T.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 26 May 2011, para. 7.7; and communication No. 466/2011, Alp v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 May 2014, para. 8.3.