CAT/C/46/D/419/2010 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee also notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), and that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the communication. 7.4 Although the complainant has not invoked article 15 of the Convention, the Committee believes that the communication also raises questions covered by that provision. 7.5 The Committee therefore finds the communication admissible, in that it raises questions with regard to articles 3 and 15 of the Convention, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether Djamel Ktiti’s extradition to Algeria would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.3 Regarding the complainant’s article 3 allegations, the Committee must take account of all considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the country of return. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether Djamel Ktiti runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in Algeria. Consequently the existence in the country of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture on extradition to that country; additional grounds must exist to indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 8.4 The Committee refers to its general comment No. 1 on article 3, which states that, in light of the obligation to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he to be expelled, returned or extradited, the Committee must assess the risk of torture on the basis of elements beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, it is not necessary to demonstrate that the risk is highly probable, although it must be personal and real. In previous decisions, the Committee has ruled that the risk of torture must be foreseeable, real and personal. 8.5 The Committee recalls that when it considered the third periodic report of Algeria, submitted in accordance with article 19 of the Convention, it was concerned at the many serious allegations which it had received of cases of torture and ill-treatment inflicted on detainees by law-enforcement officers.3 8.6 In the case in question, the Committee has taken note of the complainant’s allegations that M.K. underwent severe torture while in police custody in Algeria, leading him to name Djamel Ktiti as the leader of the drug-trafficking ring in question; it further notes that, on the basis of this confession obtained under torture, the Court of Constantine sentenced Djamel Ktiti in absentia to life imprisonment, but that the sentence was never 3 6 CAT/C/DZA/CO/3, 26 May 2008, para. 10. GE.11-43864