7.8 在这方面，委员会注意到申诉人所作的以下陈述：由于他被认为与俾路支民族主义运动有联系，如果将他强行遣返巴基斯坦，他就有可能遭受巴基斯坦主管机构施行的违反《公约》第 3 条的虐待。委员会注意到，申诉人先前曾经遭到巴基斯坦主管机构的任意拘留和虐待，申诉人说，他被拘留了 10 天，被迫表示愿意向主管机构提供他可能获取的任何关于俾路支民族主义运动的信息，主管机构在他获释之后再次找到他，对他进行进一步询问。委员会注意到，缔约国认为，申诉人遭受任意拘留和虐待一事属实。委员会还注意到，缔约国没有接受申诉人关于拘留事件的说法，也没有接受申诉人关于被迫表示愿意向主管机构提供获取的任何关于俾路支民族主义运动的信息的说法。委员会指出，缔约国没有提出任何实际论点为其结论提供依据，也没有提供任何会对申诉人的说法产生怀疑具体资料。因此，委员会认为，在评估本案指称的危险时，缔约国没有恰当考虑到提交人在评估如被遣返原籍国将会面临的指称的危险时，就他曾在巴基斯坦经历的事件作出的指称。
7.8 In this connection, the Committee takes note of the complainant’s claim that he is at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention by Pakistani authorities if forcibly returned to Pakistan owing to his perceived connection to the Balochi nationalist movement. The Committee notes that the complainant has previously been arbitrarily detained and ill-treated by Pakistani authorities, that he has asserted that he was detained for a period of 10 days and pressured into stating that he would provide any information he could obtain on the Balochi nationalist movement to the authorities and that 8 See, for example, Human Rights Watch, “Enforced Disappearances by Pakistan Security Forces in Balochistan” (July 2011). Available from www.hrw.org/report/2011/07/28/we-can-torture-kill-or-keep-you-years/enforced-disappearances-pakistan-security. 9 Ibid. 10 See communications No. 338/2008, Mondal v. Sweden, Views adopted on 23 May 2011, para. 7.4; and No. 343/2008, Kalonzo v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 May 2012, para. 9.7. the authorities contacted him after his release in order to question him further. The Committee observes that the State party has accepted as a fact that the complainant was detained arbitrarily and ill-treated. The Committee also observes that the State party has not accepted the complainant’s claims regarding the detention period or that he was pressured into stating that he would provide any information obtained on the Balochi nationalist movement to the authorities. The Committee notes that the State party does not provide any concrete arguments to justify its conclusion and that no specific information has been presented that would raise doubts about the complainant’s assertion. The Committee is therefore of the view that, when assessing the alleged risk in the particular case of the complainant, the State party failed to take into due consideration the author’s allegations regarding the events he had experienced in Pakistan when assessing the alleged risk he would face if returned to his country of origin.