CAT/C/53/D/470/2011 Republic of Iran. In assessing that risk, 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. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the 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. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, 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”, the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case that he or she faces a “foreseeable, real and personal” risk. 15 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with its general comment No. 1, it gives considerable weight to findings of fact that are made by organs of the State party concerned, 16 while at the same time it 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. 7.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s contention that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he will be persecuted, tortured, and eventually sentenced to death and executed, if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran, based on his past political activities there, his illegal departure from the country, his failed asylum application, and his atheistic and agnostic views and related activities as pursued in Switzerland. It also notes the State party’s observations concerning the complainant’s lack of credibility, in particular the doubts regarding his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran because of his alleged involvement in the December 2009 protests. It notes that the State party’s concerns are based on, inter alia: his allegedly unrealistic description of the reasons for his attacking the officials during the demonstration of 27 December 2009, as well as of his arrest and escape; the discrepancy in his description of the duration of his detention in the police van; the allegedly unrealistic statements, made by the officials during the search of his parents’ house, regarding the grounds for his prosecution; the alleged inauthenticity of the summons by the Revolutionary Tribunal; and his failure to indicate his exact travel itinerary and to prove that he had left the Islamic Republic of Iran illegally. The Committee also notes the State party’s argumentation to the effect that the complainant had not been tortured in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has not been challenged by the complainant. 7.5 Referring to its recent jurisprudence,17 the Committee recalls that there are continuing reports regarding the use of psychological and physical torture to solicit confessions in the Islamic Republic of Iran, which indicate the widespread and systematic 15 16 17 See, inter alia, communication No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003; and communication No. 258/2004, Dadar v. Canada, decision adopted on 23 November 2005. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. See communication No. 481/2011, K.N., F.W. and S.N. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 19 May 2014; Jahani v. Switzerland; and communication No. 381/2009, Faragollah et al. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 21 November 2011. 11