CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable” (para. 6), the Committee recalls that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. 14 Although, under the terms of its general comment No. 1, the Committee is free to assess the facts on the basis of the full set of circumstances in every case, considerable weight is given to the findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned (para. 9).15 7.5 In the present case, the complainant alleges that if he is returned to the Russian Federation he may be subjected to torture as he had been subjected to ill-treatment, including beatings and electric shocks, in 2010 by Chechen officials and that torture is widely used in Chechnya with the “purpose” of keeping people under control. 7.6 In that connection, the Committee notes that, even if it accepts the claim that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past, the question is whether he still remains at risk of torture in the Russian Federation. The Committee notes that, at present, the human rights situation in the Russian Federation is a matter of concern, in particular in the northern Caucasus region. The Committee recalls that, in 2012, it had expressed concern at numerous, ongoing and consistent reports of serious human rights abuses inflicted by or at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence of public officials or other persons acting in official capacities in the northern Caucasus, including the Chechen Republic, including torture and ill-treatment, abductions, enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings.16 Nonetheless, the Committee recognizes that the occurrence of human rights violations in his/her country of origin is not sufficient, in itself, to permit to conclude that a complainant, would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture.17 7.7 The Committee notes that the State party has drawn attention to the inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant’s accounts and submissions, which cast doubts on his general credibility and on the veracity of his claims. In particular, the State party notes that the complainant had stated to the asylum authorities that he had never sympathized with the rebels nor taken part in their activities, but had only sold them groceries when they came to his father’s shop. However, according to the State party, despite the fact that he had never been involved in the rebels’ activities, he also claimed that he had been arrested, detained and allegedly tortured. Furthermore, the State party notes that the available country information does not support the existence of a practice such as the one alleged by the complainant, that he was sought at his home almost immediately after being released from the first arrest and that he was re-arrested despite being given an “assignment” to carry out. 14 15 16 17 See also, communication No. 203/2002, A. R. v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N. S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. See CAT/C/RUS/CO/5, para. 13. See, inter alia, communication No. 519/2012, T. M. v. Republic of Korea, decision adopted on 21 November 2014, para. 9.7. 11