CAT/C/64/D/641/2014 the payment for his release was the contribution of the entire family that was “deposited to the authorities” by his wife. 5.9 To conclude, the complainant submits that some of the arguments put forward by the State party demonstrate a very narrow way of looking at the facts on which the present complaint is based. Namely, the State party and, previously, the Migration Agency and the Migration Court, seem to evaluate the facts from a very Swedish perspective and not from the more relevant one, i.e. the situation in the complainant’s country of origin. State party’s additional observations 6. By note verbale of 28 March 2018, the State party noted that the complainant’s comments did not include any new submissions in substance which had not already essentially been covered by the State party’s observations of 2 July 2015, and emphasized that it fully maintained its position regarding the admissibility and merits of the present complaint. The State party also recalls that the decision to expel the complainant will become statute-barred on 10 September 2018 (see para. 4.1 above) and urges the Committee to consider the admissibility and/or merits of the present complaint well ahead of that cut-off date. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 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. 7.2 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 notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies.21 The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The State party maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible, pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, as it is manifestly unfounded. The Committee, however, considers that the complaint has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility, because the complainant’s allegations of a risk of torture or ill-treatment in case of his forced removal to Côte d’Ivoire raise issues under article 3 of the Convention. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 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. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Côte d’Ivoire would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 (1) 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 complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Côte d’Ivoire. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence 21 8 See, for example, X.Q.L. v. Australia (CAT/C/52/D/455/2011), para. 8.2.