CAT/C/44/D/356/2008 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. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3, that "the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable" (A/53/44, annex IX, paragraph 6), but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has determined that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal 13 . Furthermore, the Committee observes that considerable weight will be given, in exercising the Committee's jurisdiction pursuant to article 3 of the Convention, to findings of facts that are made by organs of the State party concerned. 7.4 In the present case, the Committee considers that the facts as presented do not permit it to conclude that the complainant would be at personal, foreseeable, present and real risk of torture in case of his return to Turkey. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee has noted that the attack – which is, according to the complainant, the main cause of the authorities’ attention on him – has taken place in 1993, i.e. long time ago, while he has not sufficiently explained its relevance in the current situation. It also has noted the complainant’s allegations on the tortures suffered, in 1993, and his failure to produce a recent medical certificate on the matter. It also notes the allegations that the father and the uncle of the complainant had been persecuted by the authorities in an attempt to locate him and they had allegedly lost their lives as a consequence, In this respect, the Committee notes that at the same time, however, other members of the complainant’s family, including the complainant himself, have lived in Istanbul for many years, after the alleged attacks in 1993. The Committee has also noted that the complainant has also alleged that in Turkey, he would be at risk to be enrolled in the army and would have no protection there, but it does not consider that this has been sufficiently substantiated, so as to be of pertinence and to be taken into account in the evaluation of the risk for the complainant in the present case. 7.5 The Committee has finally noted the conclusions of the psychiatric expert as submitted by the complainant subsequent to the registration of his communication. However, it is of the opinion that the very fact that the complainant suffers, at present, from psychological problems as reported by a medical expert, cannot be seen as constituting sufficient grounds to justify an obligation, for the State party, to refrain from proceeding with the complainant’s removal to Turkey. 7.5 In light of all the above, the Committee is not persuaded that the facts as submitted are sufficient to conclude that the complainant would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the complainant’s removal to that country would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or 13 See, inter alia, Communication No. 258/2004, Moistafa Dadar v. Canada, Decision adopted on 23 November 2005, and Communication No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on 6 May 2005. 10