CAT/C/52/D/483/2011-CAT/C/52/D/485/2011 Complainants’ comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 21 August 2012, in their comments on the State party’s observations, the complainants submitted that there are no contradictions between the statements from the medical doctors and those of the complainants themselves. They also claim that they both made every effort to provide and clarify all the necessary evidence to corroborate their accounts. 5.2 The complainants agree that they cannot be regarded as high-profile members of the Komala party. However, they refer to the “Operational guidance note – Iran” published by the United Kingdom Home Office, which states that “applicants who are able to demonstrate that they are members or supporters of … Komala … and who are known to the authorities as such, will be at real risk of persecution”.13 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the present case, the State party has recognized that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country. The aim of such a determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 13 See note 6 above. 7