CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in that country. However, as the Committee has repeatedly emphasized, the aim of the determination 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 be returned. 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. For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist, showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.3 4.13 Concerning the human rights situation in Azerbaijan, the State party submits that torture, beatings leading to death, police brutality and arbitrary arrests are not uncommon. The Armenian population of Azerbaijan has a bad reputation among the public. Although harassment may occur, the Armenians cannot be regarded as the target of State-sanctioned discrimination.4 Discrimination against ethnic Armenians was a problem in 2006, and Azerbaijani citizens who were ethnic Armenians often concealed their ethnicity by legally changing their ethnic designation in their passports.5 There were also specific complaints with regard to the way law enforcement agents treat Armenians. Examples of harassment and extortion were mentioned.6 According to the United States Department of State report, there were, however, no reports of discrimination against Armenians in 2008. Moreover, according to a survey carried out in 2003 by UNHCR’s implementing partner, while discrimination against ethnic Armenians is not a proclaimed official policy in Azerbaijan, there is clearly a certain amount of discrimination against them in everyday life, which is tolerated by the authorities; this discrimination is not such as to amount to persecution per se, but in individual cases it is possible that the cumulative effect amounts to it.7 Moreover, the State party submits that the lack of reports of discrimination during 2008 indicates an improvement of the situation. 4.14 The State party further submits that the circumstances referred to in the above mentioned reports do not in themselves suffice to establish that the forced return of the complainants to Azerbaijan would entail a violation of article 3 of the Convention. A forced deportation would only violate article 3 if the complainants could show that they would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture. According to the Committee's jurisprudence, for the purposes of article 3, the individual concerned must face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured in the country to which he or she is to be returned.8 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, according to which it is for the complainant to present an arguable case, i.e. to collect and present evidence in support of his or her account of events 9. In this context, the Swedish migration authorities apply the same kind of test when considering an application for asylum under the Aliens Act as the Committee will apply when examining a 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 See communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, 2007 Human Rights Report on Azerbaijan. United Kingdom Home Office, Operational Guidance Note: Azerbaijan, 26 April 2007, paras. 3.6.23.6.3 Council of Europe, Report by the Commissioner for Human Rights Mr. Thomas Hammarberg on his visit to Azerbaijan, 3-7 September 2007 (20 February 2008), para. 91. UNHCR, “International Protection Considerations Regarding Azerbaijani Asylum-Seekers and Refugees,” September 2003, para. 124. Communication no. 103/1998, S.M.R. and M.M.R v. Sweden, decision adopted on 5 May 1999, para. 9.7. Communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.4; No. 265/2005, A.H. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 16 November 2006, para. 11.6.