to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the determination, however, 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 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 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. 15.2 The Committee first notes that the author was removed to India on 23 December 1997, despite a request for interim measures pursuant to rule 108 (9) of the rules of procedure according to which the State party was requested not to remove the author while his communication was pending before the Committee. 15.3 One of the overriding factors behind the speedy deportation was the claim by the State party that the "author's continued presence in Canada represents a danger to the public". The Committee, however, is not convinced that an extension of his stay in Canada for a few more months would have been contrary to the public interest. In this regard, the Committee refers to a case of the European Court of Human Rights (Chahal v. United Kingdom) which requires that scrutiny of the claim "must be carried out without regard to what the person may have done to warrant expulsion or to any perceived threat to the national security of the expelling State". 15.4 As for the merits of the communication, the Committee notes that the author has now been living in India for more than two years. During this time, although he claims to have been harassed and threatened along with his family, on various occasions by the police, it seems that there was no escalation in the manner in which he has been treated by the authorities. In these circumstances, and given the substantial period that has elapsed since the author's removal 6 ample time for the allegations of the author to have materialized 6 the Committee cannot but conclude that such allegations were unfounded. 15.5 The Committee is of the opinion that after a period of nearly two and a half years, it is unlikely that the author would still at risk of being subjected to acts of torture. 16.1 The Committee considers that the State party, in ratifying the Convention and voluntarily accepting the Committee's competence under article 22, undertook to cooperate with it in good faith in applying the procedure. Compliance with the provisional measures called for by the Committee in cases it considers reasonable is essential in order to protect the person in question from irreparable harm, which could, moreover, nullify the end result of the proceedings before the Committee. The Committee is deeply concerned that the State party did not accede to its request for interim measures under rule 108, paragraph 3, of its rules of procedure and removed the author to India. 16.2 The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the author's removal to India by the State party does not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. [Done in English, French, Russian and Spanish, the English text being the original version.] 108