CAT/C/57/D/558/2013 8.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties. 9.2 With regard to the first complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture, should he be returned to Belarus. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (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 the evaluation 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.8 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. 9.3 The Committee 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,9 while at the same time it is not bound by such findings and instead has the power, provided in article 22 (4) of the Convention, of free assessment of the facts based upon the full set of circumstances in every case. 9.4 In the present case, the first complainant claimed that in 1999 his brother had been killed after having joined the Chechen resistance in 1997, and that after his brother’s death, the first complainant had been kidnapped by members of a pro-Russian paramilitary group called Kadyrovtsi, who detained him and tortured him for two weeks. The first complainant also submitted that if he was returned to Belarus, he would be deported to the Russian Federation and would face torture because of his perceived affiliation with the Chechen resistance and because he had fled the country. The Committee notes that the State party dismissed the first complainant’s account of torture in Chechnya, stating that it lacked credibility because the information he gave regarding the date of his arrest in Chechnya was contradictory and he could not provide any details about the detention conditions.The Committee notes that the complainant provided a detailed description of the torture that he had endured, both to the national authorities and in his submission to the Committee. The Committee also notes that the complainant has presented medical certificates, dated 31 March 2007 and 14 January 2011, certifying that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression and that he underwent orthopaedic treatment, confirming that it is likely that the complainant was subjected to torture in the past. Concerning the State party’s general argument that the first complainant’s account is not credible, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence that complete accuracy is seldom to be expected by victims of torture and that such inconsistencies as may exist in the complainant’s presentation of the facts are not 8 9 See, inter alia, communication No. 470/2011, X. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 24 December 2014. See, inter alia, communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 6 May 2010, para. 7.3. 9