- 128 5.3 The petitioner submits that, in the light of recent developments, it is too simplistic to argue that the petitioner’s sympathy with the FIS is unlikely to draw the attention of the Algerian gendarmerie to his case. It is argued that those who have not claimed the amnesty or who fall outside its terms as provided for by the Civil Harmony Law are likely to be pursued rigorously. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 The Committee notes the information from the State party that the deportation of the petitioner has been suspended, in accordance with the Committee’s request under rule 108, paragraph 9, of its rules of procedure. 6.2 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether the communication 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. The Committee notes that the State party considers the communication inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation. However, the State party did not submit further arguments in this regard, but arguments on the merits should the Committee find the communication admissible. The Committee, therefore, is of the opinion that the State party’s arguments raise only substantive issues, which should be dealt with at the merits and not the admissibility stage. Since the Committee sees no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. 6.3 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the petitioner would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Algeria. In reaching this decision, 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. The aim of the determination, however, 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 return. 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 a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 6.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that the petitioner’s social activities for the FIS date back to the beginning of 1992, at which time he was detained and interrogated for two hours. It is not submitted that the petitioner was tortured or prosecuted for his activities for FIS before leaving for Syria. 6.5 The Committee notes that the petitioner invokes the protection of article 3 on the grounds that he is personally in danger of being arrested and tortured in connection with the disputed court verdict of 1996. However, the petitioner does not submit any information supporting the claim that the petitioner will be exposed to the risk of torture. The Committee considers that,