CAT/C/56/D/604/2014 injuries are documented in the medical certificate or record of medical treatment submitted by the complainant. These indicate that he had a lacerated wound on the right elbow, on the right side of his face and on the back of his head as a result of an assault. The State party submits that there is no evidence of past torture within the meaning of the Convention. The complainant has not provided any medical analysis as to how the injuries described in the medical reports would be consistent with torture. 4.28 The State party submits that, even if the complainant is given the benefit of the doubt and it is accepted that he was tortured in January 2010, this factor alone does not support a conclusion that he would be tortured in the future. The State party refers to the Committee’s consistent views that previous experience of torture is but one consideration in determining whether a person faces a personal risk of torture upon return to his country of origin.24 4.29 The complainant relies on the affidavit evidence he has presented to the Committee to support his claim that he continues to face threats from Sunni extremists in Pakistan. The affidavits indicate that the complainant’s parents have been informed by their neighbours that the Sunni extremists are still going to their community to ask about the family’s whereabouts, including the whereabouts of the complainant, and that the Sunni extremists are still trying to locate the complainant and his family in their village in order to kill them. The State party reiterates that its decision makers have not yet been given an opportunity to review this evidence. While the State party does not seek to prejudge this evidence, it observes that there is considerable overlap in the text of the two affidavits, which calls into question the reliability of this evidence. In addition, it notes that the affidavits do not identify any future risk of torture that the complainant may personally face in other parts of Pakistan. 4.30 The State party submits that no weight should be given to the documents provided by the complainant in the Urdu language. The complainant has failed to translate or indicate with any specificity the contents of these documents in an official language of the United Nations. 4.31 The State party submits that since the complainant has not established that he would be at personal risk if returned to Pakistan, it is unnecessary for the Committee to go on to consider the general human rights situation in Pakistan. In V.N.I.M. v. Canada, the Committee considered that when an complainant’s allegations are neither credible nor corroborated by objective evidence, it is “not necessary to examine the general human rights situation” in the country of origin. 25 The State party submits that the analysis in V.N.I.M. v. Canada applies in the present instance. 4.32 In the event that the Committee considers it necessary to consider the general human rights situation in Pakistan, the State party submits that, even if the complainant could be said to face a real risk of torture in his community with the consent or acquiescence of state officials, objective evidence concerning conditions in Pakistan suggests that the complainant may have an internal flight alternative that would allow him to live without risk of serious harm in other parts of Pakistan. The State party acknowledges that the situation in Pakistan for Shia Muslims is problematic. 26 However, the United Kingdom 24 25 26 12 See, for example, communications No. 235/2003, M.S.H. v. Sweden, decision adopted 14 November 2005; and No. 338/2008, Mondal v. Sweden, decision adopted 23 May 2011. See communication No. 119/1998, V.N.I.M. v. Canada, decision adopted 12 November 2002, paras. 8.4-8.5. The State party acknowledges the Human Rights Committee’s relatively recent final views in communication No. 1898/2009, Choudhary v. Canada, Views adopted 31 August 2009. It does not dispute the general view that Shia Muslims face some level of persecution in Pakistan, a Sunni