CAT/C/59/D/581/2014 7.2 The Committee must determine whether the deportation of the complainant to India would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture there. The Committee recalls that the existence in a country of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not, in itself, a sufficient ground for believing that an individual would be subjected to torture.4 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that an individual might not be subjected to torture. 7.3 Recalling its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee reaffirms that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, but it must be personal, present, foreseeable and real. 5 7.4 The Committee takes note of the claim that the complainant was arrested and tortured by the police in Punjab. The Committee also notes that, according to the complainant, the State party’s domestic authorities failed to take into consideration this information. 7.5 The Committee further notes that, even if it were to accept the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture and/or ill-treatment in the past, the question is whether he remains, at present, at risk of torture in India in the event of his forcible return there. The Committee notes that, while the complainant has made a number of assertions and allegations, he has not provided a clear evidence to substantiate the risk of torture, if returned to India. 7.6 The Committee also notes that the State party has drawn attention to inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s accounts and submissions which cast doubt on his general credibility and the veracity of his claims. The Committee notes that the complainant failed to provide dates, locations and names of persons involved in the events central to his claim for protection, and notes in particular the lack of details and description regarding his alleged arrests and instances of torture suffered at the hands of the police authorities in Punjab. 7.7 The Committee further observes that the complainant merely stated before the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada that he feared being subjected to torture if he was returned to India, claiming that he had been tortured in the past, and that he would be targeted again. The Committee notes, however, that the complainant does not put forward any evidence that the authorities in India would target him if he is returned. 7.8 The Committee recalls that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, and that it is generally for the complainant to present an arguable case.6 In that regard, the Committee, in addition to the lack of detailed information about the alleged instances of torture, also notes the discrepancies as described by the State party. In the light of these considerations, and on the basis of all the information submitted by the complainant and by the State party, including information on the general situation of human rights in India, the Committee considers that the complainant has not provided 4 5 6 See communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, para. 15.3. 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. See, inter alia, communications No. 298/2006, C.A.R.M. and others v. Canada, decision adopted on 18 May 2007, para. 8.10; No. 256/2004, M.Z. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 12 May 2006, para. 9.3; No. 214/2002, M.A.K. v. Germany, decision adopted on 12 May 2004, para. 13.5; No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 347/2008, N.B.-M. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 14 November 2011, para. 9.9. 7