CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainants run a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which they would be returned. The Committee reiterates that 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 a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to 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. 11.3 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 personal5. 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. 11.4 In the present case, the Committee considers that the facts as presented do not permit it to conclude that the complainant and his wife would be at personal, foreseeable, present and real risk of torture in case of their return to Turkey. In reaching this conclusion, the Committee has noted, in particular, the State party’s observations on the conclusions of the Swiss asylum authorities on the lack of credibility of the complainant, the conclusions on the use of false evidence, such as an issue of a newspaper containing an arrest warrant and the picture of the complainant, and the use of two arrest warrants allegedly signed by a judge but carrying the stamp of a prosecutor’s office, and the information emanating from the Swiss Embassy through a Turkish lawyer to the effect that no police records or arrest/search warrants existed with the Turkish authorities against the complainant in connection to political activities. The Committee has given due attention to the complainant’s and his wife’s comments, but it considers that the complainants have failed to sufficiently substantiate the arguments in refuting or clarifying the contradictions as pointed out by the State party in its replies. 11.5 Finally, the Committee has noted the conclusions of the medical and psychiatric experts as submitted by the complainants subsequent to the registration of the communication, and the existence of contradiction or misunderstandings with what the complainants have claimed before the Swiss asylum authorities. However, it is of the opinion that the very fact that the complainant suffers, at present, from psychological problems as reported by medical experts, cannot be seen as constituting sufficient grounds to impose an obligation, on the State party, to refrain from proceeding with the complainant’s and his wife’s removal to Turkey, where, as indicated by the State party’s authorities, adequate medical care is available. 11.6 In light of all the above, the Committee is not persuaded that, read as a whole, the facts before it are sufficient to allow it to conclude that the complainants would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that their removal would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. 5 See, inter alia, Communication No. 258/2004, Mostafa Dadar v. Canada, Decision adopted on 23 November 2005; Communication No. 226/2003, T.A. v. Sweden, Decision adopted on 6 May 2005; Communication No. 356/2008, N.S. v. Switzerland, Decision adopted on 6 May 2010. 13