CAT/C/48/D/413/2010 4.2 Irrespective of the outcome of the Committee’s examination of the issues relating to article 22, paragraphs 5 (a) and (b), of the Convention, the State party maintains that the complainant’s assertion that she is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of the Convention fails to attain the basic level of substantiation required for the purposes of admissibility. It submits that the communication is manifestly unfounded and, thus, inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention and rule 113, subparagraph (b) (former rule 107, subparagraph (b)), of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4.3 The State party submits that, should the Committee conclude that the communication is admissible, the issue before the Committee on the merits is whether the expulsion of the complainant would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to another state where there are substantial grounds6 for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In this respect, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, 7 according to which the aim of the determination of whether the forced return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk8 of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. 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 or her return to that country. Furthermore, the State party submits that its obligation to refrain from forcibly returning a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture is directly linked to the definition of torture as set out in article 1 of the Convention. It follows from the Committee’s jurisprudence 9 that the issue of whether a State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention. 4.4 As far as the general human rights situation in Burundi is concerned, the State party submits that it can still be described as very unstable after the long civil war between the Tutsi-dominated Government and its army and the Hutu-dominated rebel groups. As a result of the war, many civilians have lost their lives and both parties to the conflict are responsible for severe violations of the human rights of the civilian population. The human rights record of the Government of Burundi remains poor. Members of the army (Force de Défense Nationale, FDN), the police and the National Intelligence Service (Service National de Renseignement, SNR) have been responsible for killings, torture and beatings of civilians and detainees, including suspected supporters of the National Forces of Liberation (Forces Nationales de Libération, FNL)10. Security forces have continued to harass members of the opposition. Despite the ceasefire agreed in May 2008, abuses by the FNL against civilians have continued and occurred primarily in the traditional FNL strongholds, including Bujumbura Rural. While civilian authorities have generally maintained effective control of security forces, there have been instances where elements of the security forces have acted independently. Although government security forces, 6 7 8 9 10 Emphasis added by the State party. Communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. Emphasis added by the State party. Reference is made to communication No. 83/1997, G.R.B. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 15 May 1998, para. 6.5. Formerly Party for the Liberation of the Hutu People. 7