- 54 171. The Court considers that, to assess the possible situation of risk to the human rights of an individual under the jurisdiction of a State Party in a destination country, it can use domestic sources, as well as reports of international or non-governmental organizations.223 172. When examining a possible situation of risk for an individual whose extradition has been requested in the destination country, the real conditions in that country must be taken into account, and not merely the formal conditions, so that the ratification of treaties alone is insufficient to ensure that he will not be subjected to torture.224 Furthermore, the existence of domestic norms that ensure respect for human rights or the prohibition of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, is insufficient, in itself, to ensure adequate protection against treatment contrary to the Convention.225 However, the European Court has indicated that: [I]n assessing whether there is a risk of ill-treatment in the requesting country, the Court assesses the general situation in that country, taking into account any indications of improvement or worsening of the human-rights situation in general or in respect of a particular group or area that might be relevant to the applicant’s personal circumstances.226 173. In addition, the Court notes that, when analyzing a possible situation of risk in the destination country, it is not sufficient to refer to the general situation of human rights in the respective State, but rather it is necessary to demonstrate the particular circumstances of the person to be extradited that would expose him to a real, foreseeable and personal risk of being subject to treatment contrary to the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if he is extradited, such as membership in a persecuted group, prior experience of torture or ill-treatment in the requesting State, and the type of offense for which he is sought, among other matters, depending on the specific circumstances in the destination country. In this regard, the European Court has indicated that: “[R]eference to a general problem concerning human rights observance in a particular country cannot alone serve as a basis for refusal of extradition […]. Where the sources available to the Court describe a general situation, an applicant’s specific allegations in a particular case require corroboration by other evidence, with reference to the individual circumstances substantiating his fears of ill-treatment […]. The Court would not require evidence of such individual circumstances only in the most extreme cases where the general situation of violence in the country of destination is of such intensity as to create a real risk that any removal to that country would necessarily violate Article 3.227 174. Similarly, the Committee against Torture has indicated that “the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute sufficient grounds for determining that the particular person would be in danger of being 223 Cf. ECHR, Case of Saadi v. Italy [GS], No. 37201/06. Judgment of February 28, 2008, para. 131; Case of Chahal v. The United Kingdom [GS], No. 22414/93. Judgment of November 15, 1996, paras. 99 and 100; Case of Müslim v. Turkey, No. 53566/99. Judgment of April 26, 2005, para. 67; Case of Said v. The Netherlands, No. 2345/02. Judgment of July 5, 2005, para. 54; Case of Al-Moayad v. Germany, No. 35865/03. Judgment of February 20, 2007, paras. 65 and 66, and Case of Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, No. 31890/11, Judgment of October 3, 2013, para. 109. 224 Cf. Affidavit made by Ben Saul on August 18, 2014 (evidence file, folio 6961). 225 Cf. ECHR, Case of Saadi v. Italy [GS], No. 37201/06. Judgment of February 28, 2008, para. 147; Case of Muminov v. Russia, No. 42502/06. Judgment of December 11, 2008, para. 96; Case of Garayev v. Azerbaijan, No. 53688/08. Judgment of June 10, 2010, para. 73, and Case of Boutagni v. France, No. 42360/08. Judgment of November 18, 2010, para. 44. 226 ECHR, Case of Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, No. 31890/11, Judgment of October 3, 2013, para. 109. See also, Case of Saadi v. Italy [GS], No. 37201/06. Judgment of February 28, 2008, para. 131, and Case of Shamayev and Others v. Georgia and Russia, No. 36378/02. Judgment of April 12, 2005, para. 337. 227 ECHR, Case of Nizomkhon Dzhurayev v. Russia, No. 31890/11, Judgment of October 3, 2013, para. 110. See also: Dzhaksybergenov v. Ukraine, No. 12343/10. Judgment of February 10, 2011, para. 37; Case of Mamatkulov and Askarov v. Turkey [GS], Nos. 46827/99 and 46951/99. Judgment of February 4, 2005, para. 73.