CAT/C/45/D/339/2008 knowledge of political matters and that today Iranian Monarchists do not carry out political activities in Iran. 8.2 As to the issue of his lack of political knowledge, the complainant argues that he was not so questioned during his hearing by the Board and that the type of work he undertook was the only type of political work possible in Iran i.e. underground propaganda work. Due to the political situation in Iran, he did not have the opportunity to study and his lawyer considers that it is possible that his political knowledge is limited but does not take away from his claim that he was politically active. As to whether the Monarchists carry out activities in Iran, the complainant submits that since the Revolution in 1979, the Board has consistently recognized that limited activities including the distribution of leaflets and other propaganda work is carried out by Monarchists. As to the fact that six years have passed since the alleged torture, the complainant argues that the lapse of time will have no bearing on the possibility of him being once again being subjected to torture. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the authors to Iran would violate the obligation of Sweden 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/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 In reaching this decision, 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. The aim of the determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, which states that the Committee is to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if deported to the country concerned. The risk need not be highly probable, but it 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”.3 9.5 With regard to the burden of proof, the Committee also recalls its general comment and its previous decisions, according to which the burden is generally on the complainant to present an arguable case and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. 3 Communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. The Netherlands, Views adopted on 21 November 2003, para. 7.3. 8