CAT/C/40/D/301/2006 Page 9 violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.3 The Committee recalls its General Comment No.1 on article 3, which states that the Committee is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion 3 . However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable,4 but it must be personal and present.5 In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal.6 Furthermore, the Committee observes that considerable weight will be given, in exercising the Committee’s jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned; but that 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 8.4 The Committee has noted the claim that Z. K. would be tortured if returned to Azerbaijan, on account of his political activities and beliefs. It also notes that he claims to have been tortured in the past and that, in support of his claims, he provides recent medical reports. These reports, however, were not previously presented before the Migration Board, and the complainant has failed to provide any explanation as to why these reports were not previously presented, nor has he claimed that such an avenue was not available to him. His failures would apparently provide sufficient grounds to reject the reports. In any case, the Committee observes that these medical reports, while attesting to the fact that he is “probably suffering from PTSD”, do not conclusively state that he was tortured, stating instead that his scars are “discreet and unspecific”, and that no exact statement can be made on how the past injuries occurred. Hence, it cannot be definitely concluded from the medical certificates that the complainant was subject to torture. At the same time, these medical reports cannot be completely disregarded as they state that the scars on the complainant’s body could have occurred as a result of torture. 8 Even if the Committee were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, the question is whether he currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Azerbaijan. It does not necessarily follow that, several years after 3 A/53/44, annex IX, CAT General Comment No. 1, paragraph 6. Id. 5 Id. paragraph 7. 6 Communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 21 November 2003, paragraph 7.3. 7 A/53/44, annex IX, CAT General Comment No. 1, paragraph 9. 8 The certificate dated 18 June 2007 from the Crisis and Trauma Centre states, inter alia, that: “There is nothing to suggest, however, that [the scars] cannot have occurred as a result of blows with weapons, kicks and falls on a hard surface.”; “The injury to his left side … may very well have been caused by heavy blows to the area from a blunt instrument …”; and “The findings of the examination can, thus, confirm that he has been subjected to aggravated assault in the manner described by him.” 4