CAT/C/55/D/530/2012 complainants have not provided an explanation as to why the Belarusian authorities would have falsely accused the second complainant of a crime at this point in time or how the complainants received the submitted documents. The State party thus shares the view of the Migration Board and the Migration Court that if the second complainant is indeed suspected of weapon offences, the complainants have not substantiated that the alleged accusations against her are anything else but a regular criminal investigation. 6.5 Finally, the State party maintains its position regarding the admissibility and merits of the complaint as expressed in the observations submitted on 24 May 2013. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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 (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. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the present communication is manifestly unfounded and thus inadmissible pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 107 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. The Committee, however, considers that the communication has been substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, as the complainant has sufficiently elaborated the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee. 7.3 The Committee further recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (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. It 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 the admissibility; it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forcible return of the complainants to Belarus would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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. 8.3 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 their country of origin. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being 13