CAT/C/53/D/492/2012 Committee has ascertained, as required under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint and thus proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return 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. 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a 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 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 return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.14 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. 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (refoulement and communications), according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable”, the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk.15 The Committee also recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned.16 It is not, however, bound by such findings and has the power, under article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 14 15 16 8 See, inter alia, communications No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2; and No. 413/2010, A.A.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 23 May 2012, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 435/2010, G.B.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2012, para. 7.4; No. 463/2011, D.Y. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 21 May 2013, para. 9.4; and No. 455/2011, X.Q.L. v. Australia, decision adopted on 2 May 2014, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3.