Advance unedited version CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 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. 10 9.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), in particular paragraph 45, according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in the case of the complainant’s deportation. Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to: (a) the political affiliation or political activities of the complainant or his or her family members; (b) arrest or detention without guarantee of fair treatment and trial; (c) previous torture; (d) incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin and (e) violence against women, including rape.11 With respect to the application of article 3 of the Convention to the merits of a communication submitted under article 22, the burden of proof is upon the author of the communication, who must present an arguable case, that is, submit substantiated arguments showing that the danger of being subjected to torture is foreseeable, present, personal and real.12 The Committee also recalls that it gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned. However, it is not bound by such findings, as it can make a free assessment of the information available to it in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to each case. 13 9.5 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that upon return to the DRC, she would face a foreseeable, personal, present and real risk of being subjected again to torture or other ill-treatment. The Committee equally takes note of the complainant’s contention that as a young, female lawyer and human rights activist, she falls into a category of people that are targeted in the DRC. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that the Finnish authorities have failed to consider her personal situation and her vulnerability as a victim of severe sexual violence and torture as well as the fact that she is suffering from PTSD. The Committee notes that the complainant argues that this has led to shortcomings in the proceedings, including the lack of the necessary procedural safeguards, such as the need for a re-assessment of her claim, the lack of presence and assistance of a female lawyer and the granting of an oral hearing, which has impacted the assessment of the plausibility of her account and the credibility of her story as well as the ensuing risk assessment. The Committee takes note of the complainant’s contention that the State party has recognised some of these shortcomings in its communication to the Committee, but contends that she failed to present well-founded arguments to substantiate her claim. 9.6 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the complainant has failed to present well-founded arguments to substantiate that she would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture if she would be returned to her home country, and that while the complainant has the burden of proof and that the alleged deficiencies in the asylum process do not suffice to explain the superficiality and un-specificity of her account. The Committee equally notes that the State party emphasises that the domestic authorities are best placed to judge the credibility of the complainant and of her account. The Committee notes that the State party informs that the officials which examined the complainant’s first asylum application held that there was no need to request a medical statement because they considered the complainant’s account implausible. The Committee takes note however, of the fact that the State party recognises that a medical statement would have had real relevance in the matter, and would probably have influenced the general conclusion on the author’s account and plausibility in the decision and that taking into account the author’s grounds for seeking asylum and her account about the health problems and serious violations of her rights, a medical statement should have been requested in the first asylum process before 10 11 12 13 See, for example: Y.B.F., S.A.Q. and Y.Y. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/50/D/467/2011), para. 7.2; R.S.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/50/D/392/2009), para. 7.3; and E.J.V.M. v. Sweden (CAT/C/31/D/213/2002), para. 8.3. General Comment No. 4 (2017), on the implementation of article 3 on the Convention in the context of article 22, CAT/C/GC/4, 4 September 2018, para. 45. Idem, para. 38. General Comment No. 4 (2017), on the implementation of article 3 on the Convention in the context of article 22, CAT/C/GC/4, 4 September 2018, para. 50. 13