CAT/C/68/D/882/2018 the disproportionate extent to which the Counter-Terrorism Act has been used against members of the Mapuche people in respect of acts related to their assertion of their rights and about the undue and excessive use of force against members of Mapuche communities, including children, women and older persons, by Carabineros and members of the investigative police during raids and other police operations. It is also concerned about the impunity with which such abuse is committed. It therefore recommends that, “as a matter of urgency”, the Counter-Terrorism Act be amended to specify exactly what terrorist offences it covers and to ensure that it is not applied to members of the Mapuche community for acts that take place in connection with the expression of social demands. 35 In addition, the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights ordered Chile to set aside the criminal convictions of Mapuche individuals and activists upholding the rights of indigenous peoples for acts wrongly categorized by Chile as acts of terrorism. Finally, in the recent universal periodic review, it was recommended that Chile should investigate all accusations of unlawful killings, excessive force, abuse and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment by law enforcement officers, including against indigenous Mapuche persons, and refrain from applying the Counter-Terrorism Act in the context of social protests by Mapuche people seeking to claim their rights. 36 In accordance with the categorization that emerged from the universal periodic review of Chile, the Committee against Torture concludes that Mapuche leaders are subjected to widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, from which protection should be provided under article 3 of the Convention. 8.5 Moreover, additional grounds must exist to indicate that the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, 37 in her specific circumstances. 38 Thus, in the present case, the Committee must also determine whether the complainant is personally at risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if deported to Chile. The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee’s practice in such circumstances has been to determine that “substantial grounds” exist whenever the risk of torture is “foreseeable, personal, present and real”.39 8.6 The Committee recalls that paragraph 28 of its general comment No. 4 (2017) refers to torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to which “an individual or the individual’s family were exposed”. On account of their actions in defence of their fundamental rights, both the complainant’s sister and her nephew were tortured and assaulted on several occasions. Her nephew needed surgery, which was paid for in Switzerland by the World Organization against Torture and the International Federation for Human Rights. According to health professionals, her family members present a combination of physical injuries and psychological disorders forming a clinical pattern typical of that exhibited by victims of organized violence. The Committee also notes that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has requested precautionary measures in respect of various members of the complainant’s family. In addition, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s argument that the award “Femme exilée, femme engagée”, which she was granted by the city of Geneva, bears witness to her politically sensitive activities in Switzerland, which involve the systematic reporting of human rights violations to international bodies and thus make her an activist like her sister. Her commitment to defending the fundamental rights of the Mapuche indigenous people would thus result in her suffering the same fate as the members of her family and community who defend the rights of the Mapuche people and are the targets of disproportionate, brutal and repeated attacks by the Chilean State and private armed militias. The Committee observes that the complainant also fears that the Counter-Terrorism Act will be used against her and that her fears are considered justified by many experts, who note in particular that her repeated 35 36 37 38 39 12 CERD/C/CHL/CO/19-21, para. 14. A/HRC/41/6, paras. 125.71 and 125.89. Alhaj Ali v. Morocco (CAT/C/58/D/682/2015), para. 8.3; R.A.Y. v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/525/2012), para. 7.2; and L.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/488/2012), para. 11.3. Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 15.3. General comment No. 4, para. 11. GE.20-00012