CAT/C/GC/4 49. All pertinent information may be introduced by both parties to explain the relevance of their submissions under article 22 of the Convention to the provisions of article 3. The following information, while not exhaustive, would be pertinent: (a) Whether the State concerned is one in which there is evidence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights; (b) Whether the complainant has been tortured or ill-treated by, at the instigation of or with the consent or the acquiescence (tacit agreement) of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity in the past, and, if so, whether this was in the recent past; (c) Whether there is medical, psychological or other independent evidence to support a claim by the complainant that the complainant has been tortured or ill-treated in the past, and whether the torture had after-effects; (d) Whether the State party has ensured that the complainant facing deportation from the territory under its jurisdiction, control or authority has had access to all legal and/or administrative guarantees and safeguards provided by law and, in particular, to an independent medical examination to assess claims that the complainant has previously suffered torture or ill-treatment in the complainant’s country of origin; (e) Whether there is any credible allegation or evidence that the complainant and/or other person’s next of kin have been or will be threatened or exposed to reprisals or other forms of sanctions amounting to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in connection with the communication submitted to the Committee; (f) Whether the complainant has engaged in political or other activities within or outside the State concerned that would appear to make the complainant vulnerable to the risk of being subjected to torture were the complainant to be expelled, returned or extradited to the State in question; (g) If returned to the State to which the complainant is being deported, whether the complainant is at risk of further deportation to another State where the complainant would face the risk of being subjected to torture; (h) Bearing in mind the status of physical and psychological fragility encountered by the majority of complainants, such as asylum seekers, former detainees and victims of torture or sexual violence, which is conducive to some inconsistencies and/or lapses of memory in their submissions, whether there is any evidence concerning the credibility of the complainant; (i) Taking into account some inconsistencies that may exist in the presentation of the facts, whether the complainant has demonstrated the general veracity of the claims.94 XI. Independence of assessment of the Committee 50. The Committee gives considerable weight to findings of fact made by organs of the State party concerned; 95 however, it is not bound by such findings. It follows that the Committee will 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.96 51. The principle of the benefit of the doubt, as a preventive measure against irreparable harm, will also be taken into account by the Committee in adopting decisions on individual communications, where the principle is relevant. 94 95 96 14 See, for example, S.P.A. v. Canada, para. 7.5. See, for example, T.D. v. Switzerland, para. 7.7; and Alp v. Denmark (CAT/C/52/D/466/2011), para. 8.3. See, for example, I.E. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/62/D/683/2015), para. 7.4.