CAT/C/56/D/586/2014 subject to appeal to the Migration Court and the Migration Court of Appeal. Moreover, arrangements for the enforcement of an expulsion order may take a long time. It is hence of the utmost importance that the Committee consider the admissibility and/or the merits of the present communication well before that date in order to leave enough time for such arrangements should the Committee’s examination lead to a finding that the communication is inadmissible or that it reveals no violation of the Convention. 4.4 The State party submits that the complainants essentially claim before the Committee that the first complainant was arrested and tortured in 2007 by the Chechen authorities and accused of being involved in the killing of several police officers. Furthermore, in 2011, he was falsely accused of having been involved in a number of explosions in Grozny in August of that year and accused of possession of illegal firearms and explosives. The second complainant claims that she has been accused of being an accomplice to the first complainant’s activities. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth complainants essentially claim the same grounds for asylum as their parents. The complainants claim that their lives would be in danger if they were returned to the Russian Federation. They have thus alleged that expelling them to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 4.5 The State party submits that it is not aware of any information indicating that the present matter is or has been the subject of any other procedure of investigation or settlement. It expects the Committee to confirm the above in the course of its examination of the admissibility of the communication. 4.6 The State party does not contest the claim that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted in the present case. 4.7 The State party maintains that the complainants’ assertion that they are at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention if returned to the Russian Federation fails to rise to the minimum level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. The State party accordingly submits that the communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure.2 General reference is made in this context to what is stated below on the merits. 4.8 The State party submits that, should the Committee conclude that the communication is admissible, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the complainants to the Russian Federation would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return 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. When determining whether the forced return of a person to another State would constitute a violation of article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in that country. However, as the Committee has repeatedly emphasized, the aim of such a determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows 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 a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. For a violation of article 3 to be 2 The State party refers to, inter alia, communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2. 5