CAT/C/79/D/1055/2021 in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.” 4.7 The State party notes that the Committee has given concrete expression to the elements of article 3 in its jurisprudence and issued specific guidelines on the implementation of this article in its general comment No. 4 (2017), paragraph 38 of which states that a complainant must show that the danger of being subjected to torture in the event of an expulsion to his or her country of origin is foreseeable, present, personal and real. Moreover, the grounds for the existence of such a risk must appear to be substantial, which is the case when the relevant claims are based on credible facts. The factors that must be taken into account in order to conclude that such a risk exists include: evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the State concerned; acts of torture or ill-treatment committed by a public official in the recent past; the existence of evidence from independent sources to support the allegations of torture or ill-treatment and the possibility of access to that evidence; allegations of torture or ill-treatment that may have been inflicted on the complainant or his or her entourage as a result of the proceedings before the Committee; political activity carried out by the complainant within or outside the country of origin; and any evidence as to the credibility of the complainant and the overall veracity of his or her allegations, despite certain inconsistencies in the presentation of the facts or lapses of memory.9 4.8 The State party notes that the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, in accordance with article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of violations of the complainant’s rights by the State. It must thus be determined whether the complainant faces a “personal” danger of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned.10 It follows that the existence of a pattern of violations of human rights in a country is not sufficient to conclude that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on being returned to the country. 11 There must therefore be additional reasons to conclude that the danger of being subjected to torture is “foreseeable, present, personal and real”.12 4.9 With regard to the situation in Cameroon, the State party notes that, despite major unrest in the English-speaking part of the country (the North-West and South-West regions), the country as a whole is not in a state of war, civil war or generalized violence. The State party notes that the report on Cameroon issued by Amnesty International in 2019, which addressed human rights violations committed by the Cameroonian authorities against active members of Mouvement pour la renaissance du Cameroun, and various press articles on the situation of members of this party in Cameroon, are documents of general scope that do not personally concern the complainant. The State party therefore considers that no direct conclusions regarding the complainant’s case can be drawn from these sources. 4.10 The State party notes that the torture or ill-treatment to which the complainant claims to have been subjected in the past is a factor to be considered when assessing his risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment again in the event of his return to his country.13 In the present case, the State party notes the finding that the complainant did not return to his country of origin and therefore could not have been subjected to the alleged detentions or ill-treatment from 15 to 29 or 30 April 2019 or from 1 June to 25 November 2019. 4.11 The State party notes that the medical report submitted by the complainant in connection with the violence he endured shows that he is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and a severe depressive episode requiring psychotherapeutic counselling and treatment with medication, and that his symptoms consist of recollections of the traumatic event in the form of recurring nightmares and intrusive memories. The State party affirms 9 10 11 12 13 GE.24-09258 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 49. K.N. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/20/D/94/1997), para. 10.2; and M.D.T. v. Switzerland, (CAT/C/48/D/382/2009), para. 7.2. Idem. See, inter alia, N.S. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/44/D/356/2008), para. 7.2; and T.Z. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/688/2015), para. 8.3. See also Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), paras. 11 and 38. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 49, (b), (c) and (d). 5