CAT/C/64/D/738/2016 prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable and that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture. 9 In assessing the risk, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The Committee recalls, however, that the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal, foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the nonrefoulement obligation exists whenever there are substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or a member of a group which may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice in such circumstances has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.10 Indications of personal risk may include: the complainant’s ethnic background; previous torture; incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; and clandestine escape from the country of origin for threats of torture.11 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case.12 7.4 The Committee notes that the complainant submitted an initial communication on 8 July 2009, which the Committee struck off the list of cases on 1 May 2014 because the complainant had not made contact with the Committee since filing the complaint. The Committee also notes that the complainant maintains in his second communication that he has played an active role in APARECO since 2010. In this regard, the Committee observes that the State party does not contest the complainant’s participation or his position in APARECO. 7.5 With regard to post-flight grounds for seeking asylum, the Committee recalls that the complainant’s involvement in political activities outside the State of origin could make him vulnerable to the risk of being subjected to torture were he returned to the State in question.13 However, the Committee notes that, even though the complainant’s membership of APARECO has not been contested, he did not join APARECO until his first asylum application had been definitively rejected. The Committee also notes that the complainant’s level of political exposure is not such as to have attracted the interest of the Congolese authorities, since the latter would focus on people whose activities go beyond involvement in the political rank and file and mark them out as serious and potentially dangerous opponents, such as leaders of APARECO who are particularly visible and people who have taken part in attacks on representatives of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee further notes that the complainant’s political involvement in Switzerland does not constitute an activity that might be considered a real and serious threat to the current Government. The Committee observes that, although the complainant has made a number of allegations, he has not provided clear and sufficient evidence that he 9 10 11 12 13 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, para. 5. See general comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. Ibid., para. 50. Ibid., para. 49 (f). GE.18-16592