CAT/C/66/D/845/2017 7.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged victim would be in danger of being subjected to torture, the Committee recalls that, under article 3 (2) of the Convention, States parties must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the requesting State. However, in the present case, the Committee must determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is extradited to Turkey. 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 the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture on extradition to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.16 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. 17 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22, according to which the nonrefoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is to be expelled, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice in this context has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.18 Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to, the political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or members of his family, and the existence of an arrest warrant without guarantee of fair treatment and a fair trial.19 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; however, it is not bound by such findings and will make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 20 7.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the complainant’s allegation that his extradition would expose him to substantial risks of torture in detention in Turkey because he is believed to be a member of the Hizmet movement. In this regard, the Committee notes that the complainant is the subject of an arrest warrant for membership of this movement, although he denies being a member, and that, according to the reports placed on file, the use of torture and ill-treatment against persons with his profile is commonplace during their detention. The Committee also notes that, according to the State party, no person will be extradited if he or she is likely to be subjected to persecution on grounds of his or her race, religion, political opinion or personal situation or if he or she may be in danger for any of these reasons. Lastly, the Committee notes that, in the present case, the State requesting the extradition has provided assurances that the complainant’s rights would be respected. 7.6 The Committee must take into account the current human rights situation in Turkey, including the impact of the state of emergency (which, although lifted in July 2018, entailed restrictive measures that have been extended through the adoption of a series of legislative measures). It notes that the successive extensions of the state of emergency in Turkey have led to serious human rights violations against hundreds of thousands of people, including arbitrary deprivation of the right to work and of freedom of movement, torture and illtreatment, arbitrary detention and violations of the rights to free association and expression.21 In this regard, the Committee recalls its concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Turkey (CAT/C/TUR/CO/4), in 2016, in which it noted with concern, in paragraph 9, a significant disparity between the high number of allegations of torture 16 17 18 19 20 21 GE.19-10568 Alhaj Ali v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/682/2015), para. 8.3; R.A.Y. v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/525/2012), para. 7.2; and L.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/488/2012), para. 11.3. Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 15.3. The Committee’s general comment No. 4, para. 11. Ibid., para. 45. Ibid., para. 50. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, “Report on the impact of the state of emergency on human rights in Turkey, including an update on the South-East, January – December 2017”, March 2018. 7