CAT/C/60/D/701/2015 Advance unedited version Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 8 July 2016, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He argues that his complaint is well-founded, that it advances a prima facie case, sufficiently elaborates the facts and the basis of his claim, and that he has accordingly substantiated his claim for the purpose of admissibility. 5.2 The complainant argues that his claims are credible and have been consistent. He considers the variation in his statements regarding the identification of the persons who detained and beat him, particularly as regards the authority they are from, to be a minor and immaterial difference in terminology. He submits that he has always referred to the same perpetrators and events and has thus been consistent. He further notes that he has been relying on interpreters during the asylum proceedings and that absolute consistency can seldom be expected of victims of torture. He argues that he has been consistent in stating that the persons who arbitrarily detained him, tortured and beat him were armed, uniformed and from the Pakistani authorities. He further notes that the State party does not contest that he was arbitrarily detained and beaten by Pakistani authorities. He submits that given that he has previously been tortured by the Pakistani authorities, the conclusion of the State party immigration authorities that he would not face a risk of torture if deported to Pakistan is arbitrary and unreasonable. He further considers that the conclusion of the State party immigration authorities that he would not have been asked to spy for the authorities is irrational and arbitrary. 5.3 The complainant also argues that the medical notes submitted by him, which confirm that he has been diagnosed with depression and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, is evidence of the impact the torture he was subjected to had on him, and of his fear of being returned to Pakistan. 5.4 The complainant submits that in addition to the personal circumstances of a complainant, evidence of mass human rights violations must also be considered in assessing a State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention. The complainant recalls that he is of part-Balochi ethnicity. Considering the situation in the region of Pakistan that he comes from, together with the fact that he has previously been subjected to torture, he considers that it is unreasonable and arbitrary to conclude that he would not face a real, personal and foreseeable risk of torture if deported to Pakistan. The complainant also refers to the State party’s travel advice on Pakistan according to which there is a high threat of kidnapping across Pakistan, but particularly in Karachi, Balochistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and that travellers are accordingly strongly advised not to travel to these areas due to the “extremely dangerous security environment and the ongoing counter-insurgency operation”. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 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. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6