CAT/C/71/D/913/2019 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. 5 9.4 The Committee recalls that, according to its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the Committee will assess substantial grounds and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of a complainant under the Convention in the case of his or her deportation. 9.5 The Committee recalls that the burden of proof is on the complainant, who must present an arguable case, i.e. submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real. 6 The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings. The Committee 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.7 9.6 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that, from 2010 onwards, in Ingushetia there has been a steady decline in the number of rebellion-related violent incidents, although they still occur. According to reports from previous years, relatives of suspected rebels run the risk of being arrested and subjected to abuse. There are still reports of disappearances and use of torture in the republics of the North Caucasus. 9.7 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainants’ allegations that they risk being subjected to torture and reprisals by the Russian authorities, if returned to the Russian Federation, owing to the fact that the Federal Security Service seems interested in the complainants because of L.H.’s brother’s affiliation with opponents of the regime in Ingushetia and because of her investigation of her husband’s disappearance. The Committee also takes note of the complainants’ argument that the Swedish migration authorities’ examination of their asylum application was arbitrary and deficient. 9.8 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainants had ample opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of their claims and to argue their case, orally as well as in writing, before migration authorities regarding their alleged grounds for protection and asylum, namely, that they were at risk of imprisonment and being killed because of their family connection to a person who allegedly was in opposition to the government in Ingushetia. The Committee takes note of the State party’s allegation that the evidence submitted by L.H. of the threats that she alleged to have received by phone, the summons to a court for interrogation, the arrest warrant, the letter of support from a human rights activist and the claim that she was declared a missing person were not reliable, of a simple nature and therefore easy to forge. 9.9 While recognizing the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the current human rights situation in Ingushetia with regard to relatives of suspected rebels, the Committee recalls that the occurrence of human rights violations in the country of origin is not sufficient in itself to conclude that a complainant faces a foreseeable, present, personal and real risk of torture. The Committee emphasises that, in its assessment of the complainant’s asylum application, the State party’s authorities should adequately assess the possible risk of ill-treatment of relatives of suspected rebels. In the light of all the information submitted by the parties, the Committee observes that the parties do not contest the fact that L.H. was given a number of opportunities to explain the relevant facts and circumstances in support of her claim and to argue her case, orally as well as in writing, including the several oral interviews and rebuttals in writing before both the Swedish Migration Board and the Migration Court. The Committee notes that each oral hearing took place for several hours, 5 6 7 I.A. v. Sweden (CAT/C/66/D/729/2016), para. 9.3; and M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 7.3. Committee’s General comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 38. Ibid., para. 50. 11