CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 their return to Tunis, they had been summoned to the Ministry of the Interior on several occasions and that their dwellings had been searched. They provided copies of three summonses and a number of medical reports. On 8 September 2008, the Federal Office for Migration rejected their application for asylum. On 29 October 2010, the Federal Administrative Court dismissed their appeal on the grounds that their allegations lacked credibility and that the summonses provided did not suffice to conclude otherwise. The Court also pointed out that the health-related problems of the first complainant could well be treated in Tunisia. 4.4 The State party recalls that, under article 3 of the Convention, States parties are prohibited from expelling, returning or extraditing a person to another State where there exist substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be subjected to torture. To determine the existence of such grounds, the competent authorities must take into account all relevant considerations, including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1, the State party adds that the author should establish the existence of a “personal, present and real” risk of being subjected to torture upon return to the country of origin. The existence of such a risk must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Additional grounds must exist for the risk of torture to qualify as “real” (paragraphs 6 and 7 of general comment No. 1). The following elements must be taken into account to assess the existence of such a risk: evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of origin; allegations of torture or ill-treatment sustained by the author in the recent past and independent evidence thereof; political activity of the author within or outside the country of origin; evidence as to the credibility of the author; and factual inconsistencies in the claim of the author (paragraph 8 of general comment No. 1). 4.5 With regard to the existence of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights, the State party submits that this is not in itself a sufficient basis for concluding that an individual might be subjected to torture upon his or her return to his or her country. The Committee should 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.3 Additional grounds should be adduced for the risk of torture to qualify as “foreseeable, real and personal” under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention.4 The risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion.5 4.6 In light of the above, the State party submits that after President Ben Ali was overthrown in mid-January 2011, several interim Governments have attempted to put in place a democratic transition process in Tunisia. Transition authorities, with support from the international community, are in charge of elaborating a new constitution, restoring the rule of law and promoting human rights. According to the new Prime Minister, the main goal of the authorities is to maintain security in the country. Although rallies and protests remain frequent, there is no civil war or generalized violence in Tunisia nowadays. Repatriation to the country is therefore considered as reasonably required by the Swiss asylum authorities. The State party further reiterates that the country situation is not in itself a sufficient ground to conclude that the complainants might be subjected to torture in the event of removal. It argues that the complainants failed to show that they would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being subjected to torture, if returned. 3 4 5 6 See communication No. 94/1997, K.N. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 19 May 1998, para. 10.2. Ibid., para. 10.5 and communication No. 100/1997, J.U.A. v. Switzerland, Views adopted on 10 November 1998, paras. 6.3 and 6.5. Para. 6 of general comment No. 1.