CAT/C/38/D/270&271/2005 Page 10 did it take into account the fact that several prominent members who were active during the same time as E. N. K. and who knew him had fled the country themselves or had been arrested and were not released until 2005. 5.6 As to the State party’s claim that contradictory information was provided on E. N. K.’s political activities, the complainants provide detailed information on the efforts made by the complainants to obtain written evidence in this regard. Their efforts culminated in the receipt of a letter dated 23 March 2006, from Sardar Calaloglu, a “front figure” of the ADP, and Hasret Rustamov, first deputy administrator, which asserted inter alia that E. N. K. had been a member since February 1999, had participated in legal and illegal manifestations, including one on 8 September 2001, and had been exposed to physical violence. According to the complainants, this information is also confirmed by a statement in a letter of 24 March 2006 from the NGO “Democracy, Human Rights and Media Monitor”. 5.7 The complainants confirm the legality of the ADP and question the relevance of the State party’s assertion of the alleged absence of systematic persecution of members of the political opposition. They deny that they provided contradictory information, but merely added to and provided more detail at each stage in the proceedings. As to the claim that the complainants should have had a clearer picture of E. N. K.’s political activities, the complainants submit that E. N. K. didn’t wish to involve his relatives in such dangerous activities. As to the judgement against E. N. K., the complainants confirm the State party’s information that this document was in fact a warrant for arrest rather than a judgement. They submit that due to a translation error it was incorrectly referred to as a “verdict” or judgement rather than a warrant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. 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. It notes the State party’s confirmation in its submissions that domestic remedies have be exhausted. 6.2 The Committee finds that no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist. It considers the complaint admissible and thus proceeds immediately to the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainants to Azerbaijan would violate the State party's obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return 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. 7.2 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