8.6 The Committee also takes note of, and attaches due weight to, the evidence and arguments put forward by the complainant concerning his personal risk of being subjected to torture: the fact that he has been arrested and tortured in the past because he was suspected of having links with EZLN; the scars he continues to bear as a result of acts of torture which he suffered; the fact that the conflict between the Government of Mexico and the Zapatista movement is not yet over and that some members of his family are still missing. In the light of the foregoing, and after due deliberation, the Committee considers that there is a risk of the complainant being arrested and tortured again on returning to Mexico. 9. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee concludes that removal of the complainant to Mexico would constitute a violation by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. 10. In accordance with rule 111, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, the Committee requests the State party to inform it, within 90 days, of the steps it has taken in response to the present views. Notes a Communication No. 34/1995, decision adopted on 9 May 1997. b General comment No. 1 (1996) of the Committee against Torture on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22. c Communication No. 584/1994, decision adopted on 22 July 1996, para. 5.3. d See Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-sixth Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/56/44), para. 58 (f). e Communication No. 170/2000, Anup Roy v. Sweden, decision adopted on 23 November 2001, para. 7.1. 111