CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 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 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, 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 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. 14 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, 15 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided by article 22 (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 contentions that there is a foreseeable, real and personal risk that he will be imprisoned and tortured if returned to Turkey because he was a politically active member of several Kurdish parties, including PKK, and in that connection was detained and tortured by the Turkish police on several occasions in the past; that he had declared himself a conscientious objector and refused to perform his compulsory military service; and that he was wanted by the Turkish authorities. The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that its domestic authorities found that the complainant lacked credibility because, inter alia, he made conflicting, fabricated statements regarding his compulsory military service and his PKK membership; his claims concerning his several detentions and subsequent unconditional release while he was allegedly wanted by the authorities were implausible; he made vague replies to questions about when, where and how he has joined PKK; and his reaction to the episode of the confrontation between the PKK guerrilla unit and the authorities on the way to the PKK training camp in the mountains was also not credible. The Committee also notes that the incidents that led the complainant to leave Turkey occurred between 2006 and 2010. It also observes that the complainant has alleged facts and provided some evidence concerning the critical issue of whether he currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Turkey at the time of the communication, five years later.16 7.5 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claims that he was detained by the police several times during the above-mentioned period for periods of 3-10 days; that he was apprehended in the street, a sack was put over his head and he was then driven to an unknown place where he was isolated in a cell in the basement with no windows or furniture but a low-hanging lamp with a bright light; that he had to sleep on the floor and he had no access to toilet facilities; that for food and drink he had water and a piece of bread; that several times when he had asked for water a glass of urine was poured over him; that he was forced to urinate and defecate on the floor of the cell and, when that happened, he was subjected to blows and threats; and that he was questioned about his activities in the Peace and Democracy Party and pressured to become an informant for the Turkish authorities. The Committee further notes the complainant’s claim that he was tortured by means of: random blows with a net full of oranges on the face, chest and back, random beating with a hard, round and thick stick to the legs, arms and back, repeated blows to the 14 15 16 See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November 2003; 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. 429/2010, Sivagnanaratnam v. Denmark, decision adopted on 11 November 2013, para. 10.5. 13