CAT/C/48/D/424/2010 6.2 The State party also submits that the authenticity of the certificate from the Popular Front Party is questionable. The certificate states that the complainant was subjected to numerous persecutions, yet the complainant has never himself made such claims. The State party reiterates its position that the expulsion of the complainant would not be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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. 7.3 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s acknowledgment that domestic remedies have been exhausted and thus finds that the complainant has complied with article 22, paragraph 5 (b). 7.4 The State party submits that the complaint is “manifestly ill-founded” and should not be examined on its merits. The Committee is of the opinion that the arguments before it raise substantive issues which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility considerations alone. 7.5 Accordingly, the Committee finds the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainant’s removal to Azerbaijan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 8.2 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk in the country to which he would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.3 The aim of the present exercise is to determine whether the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in Azerbaijan after his return.7 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 on article 3, which states that the Committee 7 Azerbaijan has accepted the Committee’s competence under article 22 of the Convention and has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention. 7