United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Jurispr... Page 6 of 6 rights. The aim of the termination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.3 In the present case, the Committee notes that the petitioner has claimed that, during his first detention in early 1985, he was tortured. Although not explicitly corroborated by medical evidence or detained submission by the petitioner, the Committee is prepared to consider that the petitioner may have been maltreated during his first detention. The Committee also notes that the petitioner has not claimed that he was tortured during his subsequent detentions. Finally, the Committee notes that the periods of the two latest detentions in 1990 were short, that the petitioner has not claimed that he was ever an active political opponent and that there is no indication that he is being sought by the authorities in Iran at the present time or would be at a particular risk of being tortured for reason of his Canadian criminal record. Therefore, the Committee considers that the petitioner has not substantiated his claim that he will be personally at risk of being subjected to torture if he is returned to Iran. 7.4 With regard to the alleged violation of article 16 of the Convention, the Committee notes that article 3 of the Convention does not encompass situations of ill-treatment envisaged by article 16, and further finds that the petitioner has not substantiated a claim that he would face such treatment upon return to Iran as would constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment with the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. Conclusions 8. The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the removal of B.S. to the Islamic Republic of Iran, on the basis of the information submitted, would not entail a breach of articles 3 and 16 of the Convention. Notes 1. The State party makes reference to P.S.S. v. Canada, case No. 66/1997; R.K. v. Canada, case No. 42/1996; L.O. v. Canada, case No. 95/1997. 2. Case No. 57/1996. ©1996-2001 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Geneva, Switzerland http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/MasterFrameView/c2824cc1fc644768c1256c62005... 26.02.2008