CAT/C/64/D/680/2015 State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. This includes torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of nonState entities, including groups that are unlawfully exercising actions that inflict severe pain or suffering for purposes prohibited by the Convention, and over which the receiving State has no or only partial de facto control, or whose acts it is unable to prevent or whose impunity it is unable to counter.10 15.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Pakistan. 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 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. 11 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.12 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. 13 15.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of the complainant’s deportation (para. 45). 15.5 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that he had been attacked and beaten at his home by the Taliban for running a music store, and that later his house was attacked by gunfire by the Taliban because he assisted the Pakistan Army to identify a number of Taliban militants from his village, who were arrested and executed. He also claimed that, if returned to Pakistan, he would face a real risk of severe pain and torture from the Taliban, based on the threats and attacks he suffered from them in the past and his affiliation with the Awami National Party as a peace committee member. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the complainant’s claims have been thoroughly considered by a series of domestic decision makers, including courts, and determined to be not credible, and did not engage the Government’s non-refoulement obligations. In particular, the Committee takes into account the State party’s allegations of inconsistency in the complainant’s statements about the injuries he suffered as a consequence of the attack on his house by the Taliban, and the overall lack of credibility of the complainant’s story. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the complainant’s claim of his political affiliation with the Awami National Party was not brought up during the domestic asylum procedure, and the State party’s doubt with regard to the genuine nature of the letter submitted in support of the complainant’s membership of the Party. 15.6 The Committee observes that, even assuming that the complainant had been attacked by the Taliban, the alleged instances happened more than nine years ago and the question is whether he currently runs a risk of torture if returned to Pakistan. It does not necessarily follow that, so many years after the alleged events occurred, he would still be at risk of being subjected to torture if returned to his country of origin. The Committee also observes that the complainant has not adduced any evidence that the Taliban had been looking for him in the recent past. 10 11 12 13 10 Committee’s general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, para. 30. M.S. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/571/2013), para. 7.3. Ibid. Ibid.