CAT/C/67/D/857/2017 Advance unedited version 8.3 Seeing no other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee finds that the complaint is admissible under article 22 of the Convention with respect to the alleged violation of article 3, and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the complainant’s extradition to Turkey constituted a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to extradite 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. The Committee recalls, first and foremost, that the prohibition against torture is absolute and nonderogable and that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture.9 9.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged victim would be in danger of being subjected to torture, the Committee recalls that, under article 3 (2) of the Convention, States parties must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the requesting State. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is extradited to Turkey. The existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on extradition to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 10 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. 11 9.4 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 the person concerned 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 this context has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”. 12 Indications of personal risk may include, but they are not limited to: the complainant’s ethnic background; political affiliation or political activities of the complainant and/or the complainant’s family; 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 owing to threats of torture. 13 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.14 9.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his extradition to Turkey would make him face a serious risk of persecution and torture in detention in Turkey owing to the perception that he is a member and one of the leaders of the Revolutionary Party of Kurdistan (PSK). In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant has been sentenced in 2012 to 15 years in prison for his membership in PSK, 9 10 11 12 13 14 10 See the Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, para. 5. See Ayden v. Morocco (CAT/C/66/DR/846/2017), para. 8.3; Alhaj Ali v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/682/2015), para. 8.3; and Mugesera v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/488/2012), para. 11.3. See M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 7.3. See general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. Ibid., para. 50.