CAT/C/71/D/913/2019 the Swedish Migration Agency and the Swedish Migration Court denied her and her daughter’s asylum applications in 2018. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee takes note of the information provided by the complainants indicating that they had exhausted all domestic remedies. The Committee also takes note of the information provided by the State party that, on 30 December 2009, the complainants unsuccessfully applied for asylum and for residence permits, or a re-examination of the issue of residence permits, citing impediments to enforcement of the expulsion order on 30 May 2012, 2 July 2013 and 18 July 2014, and that those decisions were not appealed. The Committee notes that, on 21 February 2016, the complainants’ expulsion order became statute-barred. The Committee also notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested the complainants’ assertion that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies in relation to the asylum applications. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention as far as it relates to the complainants’ deportation. 8.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainants raise substantive issues, which should be considered on their merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainants to the Russian Federation 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. 9.3 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 the Russian Federation. In assessing that 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 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 be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not, as such, constitute a sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a 10