CAT/C/GC/4 reliable.80 In addition, the Committee will take into account any of the indications listed in paragraph 29 above as constituting substantial grounds for believing that a person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if deported. 45. The Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of the complainant’s deportation. Indications of personal risk may include, but are not limited to the complainant’s: (a) ethnic background; 81 (b) political affiliation or political activities of the complainant and/or the complainant’s family members;82 (c) arrest and/or detention without guarantee of a fair treatment and trial; 83 (d) sentence in absentia;84 (e) sexual orientation and gender identity;85 (f) desertion from the national armed forces or armed groups; (g) previous torture; 86 (h) incommunicado detention or other form of arbitrary and illegal detention in the country of origin; (i) clandestine escape from the country of origin following threats of torture; (j) religious affiliation; 87 (k) violations of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including violations related to the prohibition of conversion to a religion that is different from the religion proclaimed as State religion and where such a conversion is prohibited and punished in law and in practice;88 (l) risk of expulsion to a third country where the person may be in danger of being subjected to torture;89 and (m) violence against women, including rape.90 46. When assessing whether “substantial grounds” exist, the Committee will take into account the human rights situation of a State as a whole and not of a particular area of it. The State party is responsible for any territory under its jurisdiction, control or authority. The notion of “local danger” does not provide for measurable criteria and is not sufficient to dissipate totally the personal danger of being tortured. 91 47. The Committee considers that the so-called “internal flight alternative”, that is, the deportation of a person or a victim of torture to an area of a State where the person would not be exposed to torture, unlike in other areas of the same State, is not reliable or effective.92 48. When assessing whether “substantial grounds” exist, the Committee considers that a receiving State should have demonstrated certain essential measures to prevent and prohibit torture throughout the entire territory under its jurisdiction, control or authority, such as clear legislative provisions on the absolute prohibition of torture and its punishment with adequate penalties, measures to put an end to impunity for acts of torture, violence and other illegal practices committed by public officials, the prosecution of public officials allegedly responsible for acts of torture and other ill-treatment and their punishment commensurate with the gravity of the crime committed when they are found guilty. 93 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 See rule 118 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. See, for example, Z. v. Denmark (CAT/C/55/D/555/2013), paras. 5.2 and 7.8; and M.B. and others v. Denmark, paras. 2.1, 2.2 and 9.7. See, for example, T.D. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/46/D/375/2009), para. 7.8. See, for example, Nasirov v. Kazakhstan, paras. 7.6 and 11.9. See, for example, Agiza v. Sweden, para. 13.4; and Ali Fadel v. Switzerland, para. 7.8. See, for example, Uttam Mondal v. Sweden (CAT/C/46/D/338/2008), para. 7.7. See, for example, Dadar v. Canada, para. 8.5. See, for example, Abdussamatov and others v. Kazakhstan, para. 13.8. See, for example, Abed Azizi v. Switzerland, paras. 3.2 and 8.8. See, for example, general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3, para. 2; Avedes Hamayak Korban v. Sweden (CAT/C/21/D/88/1997), para. 7; and Z.T. v. Australia (CAT/C/31/D/153/2000), para. 6.4; concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Greece (CAT/C/GRC/CO/5-6), para. 19; and concluding observations on the second periodic report of Serbia (CAT/C/SRB/CO/2), para. 15. See, for example, E.K.W. v. Finland, paras. 9.6 and 9.7. See, for example, Uttam Mondal v. Sweden, para. 7.4. See, for example, M.K.M. v. Australia, para. 8.9. See, for example, concluding observations on the combined fifth and sixth periodic reports of Argentina (CAT/C/ARG/CO/5-6), paras. 9–12 and 30; and concluding observations on the sixth periodic report of Bulgaria (CAT/C/BGR/CO/6), paras. 7, 8, 11 and 12. 13