CAT/C/58/D/616/2014 6.2 The State party adds that it considers the discrepancies and contradictions in the complainant’s statements to the Migration Board, the Migration Court and the Committee to be serious enough to cast doubts on the veracity of all his statements. The complainant submitted conflicting details about very important parts of his account of the facts. 6.3 Regarding the complainant’s contention that the migration authorities of the State party were obliged to further examine whether he had been tortured, the State party submits that the responsibility lies with the complainant to present evidence that will substantiate the risk of being exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Where such evidence is cited, it is for the State party to dispel any doubts about such evidence. The State party reiterates that there is reason to question the veracity of the complainant’s claims. The State party therefore submits that the migration authorities were not obliged to further examine whether the complainant had been tortured in the past. 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 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 complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility; it declares the communication admissible as far as the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention is concerned and proceeds with the examination 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 concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee must determine whether the deportation of the complainant to the Russian Federation would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or 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 there. The Committee recalls that the existence in a country of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself sufficient ground for believing that an individual would be subjected to torture.11 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that an individual might not be subjected to torture. 8.3 Recalling its general comment No. 1, the Committee reaffirms that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk 11 6 See communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, para. 15.3.