CAT/C/54/D/550/2013 individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. Therefore, 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 sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.2 4.6 In the light of the above, the State party notes that when determining whether the forced return of the complainants to the Russian Federation would constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention, the following considerations are relevant: the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation and, in particular, the personal risk of the complainant being subjected to torture, following his return there. 4.7 Furthermore, the State party recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the burden of proof in cases like the present one rests with the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he runs a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture.3 In addition, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, it must be personal and present.4 4.8 Regarding the general human rights situation in the Russian Federation, the State party notes that, given that the Russian Federation is party to the Convention and to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it assumes that the Committee is well aware of the general human rights situation in that country, including the situation in the northern Caucasus. In this regard, the State party therefore finds it sufficient to refer to the information regarding the human rights situation in the Russian Federation that can be found in recent reports, such as the Russia 2012 Human Rights Report published by the United States of America Department of State;5 Amnesty International’s annual report for 2012; Human Rights Watch’s World Report 2012: Russia;6 the Swedish Migration Board’s country profile of the Russian Federation dated 25 February 2011; the 2011 report of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on human rights in the Russian Federation;7 reports published by the Norwegian Country of Origin Information Centre, including “Temanotat: Tsjetsjenia Sikkerhetssituasjonen”, “Temanotat Nord-Kaukasus: Etterlysninger” and “Temanotat Tsjetsjenia: Tsjetsjenske myndigheters reaksjoner mot opprørere og personer som bistpr opprørere”; and a report published by the Danish Refugee Council.8 4.9 The State party submits that while the existing reports show that the general level of violence and serious human rights violations in Chechnya have decreased in recent years, there is still information about violations such as disappearances, abuse and killings. The 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 The State party refers to 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, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. See, for example, communications No. 178/2001, H.O. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 13 November 2001, para. 13, and No. 203/2002, A.R. v. the Netherlands, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 7.3. See for example, the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, paras. 5–7. Available at www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/#wrapper. Available at www.hrw.org/world-report-2012/world-report-2012-russia. Available at www.manskligarattigheter.se/sv/manskliga-rattigheter-i-varlden/ud-s-rapporter-ommanskliga-rattigheter/europa-och-centralasien?c=Ryssland. Available at http://flygtning.dk/viden-fakta/publikationer/landeprofiler/?eID= dam_frontend_push&docID=7077. 5