CAT/C/44/D/355/2008 violations of human rights does not in itself constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his or her return to that country. Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. By the same token, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a particular person might not be subjected to torture. 10.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, in which it states that it is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if he or she were returned to the country concerned. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, the danger must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.6 10.4 As to the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls its general comment and its jurisprudence, which establishes that the burden is generally upon the complainant to present an arguable case and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere presumption or suspicion. 10.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s statement that he resumed service in the army in October 1997 under the new Administration after having supported former President Lissouba. It also notes that the complainant was allegedly suspected by his colleagues of supporting the rebels and that, subsequent to an attack by the Ninja militia on Brazzaville at the end of 1999, he found out that he had been wanted by the authorities since 1 April 2000. The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that his mother was murdered and that he consequently decided to leave the country. Lastly, it notes that the complainant’s two brothers were supposedly killed on 3 March 2002 and that, since 2007, the complainant has reportedly been the subject of an arrest warrant and a notice of court proceedings in the Congo. 10.6 The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that, with the exception of an arrest warrant and a notice of court proceedings dating from 2007, the complainant has not submitted any new evidence to the Committee and that all the other documents have been assessed in depth by the domestic courts. The Committee notes that the State party believes that the peace agreements and the amnesty laws adopted by the Congo have given rise to a new situation, which nullifies any fears, whether well founded or not, that the complainant might have. The State party maintains that no independent sources have reported the initiation of any court proceedings against former rebels since the laws were adopted. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complainant did not apparently experience any problems during the two years following his readmission into army ranks under the Nguessou Administration, nor has he proved that his situation differs from that of other persons covered by the amnesty law. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that all the documents submitted by the complainant could have been drawn up in response to a request and could be forgeries. 10.7 The Committee notes the author’s argument that, despite the peace agreements, several individuals have been reported missing following their return from exile. It also notes the complainant’s belief that the agreements signed in 2003 are not sufficient grounds for maintaining that there is no risk of torture if he is deported, and that isolated cases of torture still occur. Lastly, the Committee notes that the complainant considers that his 6 GE.10-42782 Communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 21 November 2003, para. 7.3; communication No. 285/2006, A.A. et al. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 2008, para. 7.6. 9