CAT/C/65/D/822/2017 5.6 With tensions rising in 2017 and now culminating in the mass protests in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the crackdown by the Government on any form of dissent has intensified. It comes as no surprise that in 2017, the Government introduced new laws to criminalize any form of expression deemed to be “against the management of the country and its political institutions”. 21 The Secretary-General also expressed concern about continued restrictions on public freedoms and the related persecution of civil society actors (A/HRC/34/40). 5.7 In conclusion, because of his many activities in Switzerland, the chance of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran being aware of his oppositional engagement and views is very high. The State party did not assess all of his activities and thus failed to see that, overall, the complainant is very active and holds a decisive role in the opposition to the Iranian regime in Switzerland, and is therefore very exposed and at risk of being persecuted by the Iranian authorities upon return. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim 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. 6.2 The Committee 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. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran 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. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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 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 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 consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a 21 8 Amnesty International, Amnesty International Report 2016/17: The State of the World’s Human Rights (London, 2017), p. 192.