CAT/C/41/D/332/2007 Page 7 for purposes of admissibility under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention. The Committee considers, however, that the complainant has made sufficient efforts to substantiate his claim of a violation of article 3 of the Convention, for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainant's removal to Azerbaijan would constitute a violation of the State party's obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.2 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk in the country to which he 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 or her 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. 7.3 The Committee recalls its General Comment No.1 on article 3, which states that the Committee is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.2 However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being 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. Furthermore, the Committee observes that considerable weight will be given, in exercising the Committee’s jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned. The complainant has not convinced the Committee that the authorities of the State party which considered the case did not conduct a proper investigation. In addition, the complainant did not present any ID and claimed before Swedish authorities that there was no contact or reference in Azerbaijan which the State party could contact to receive information about his activities and the current situation. Anyway, the Committee is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case.3 2 3 A/53/44, annex IX, CAT General Comment No 1, paragraph 6. A/53/44, annex IX, CAT General Comment No 1, paragraph 9.