CAT/C/49/D/435/2010 application, he was employed by a newspaper and worked as a journalist and editor on political issues. He had continued to write and publish articles after the events of both 2002 and 2007. The Court also noted that the complainant himself had acknowledged that his employer wanted him to resume his job. In light of this, the Migration Court expressed doubts as to the existence of any threat against the complainant in the United Republic of Tanzania. It also took into account that the 2002 events took place a long time ago, and that the complainant was able, three weeks after the publication of his article, to leave his country legally, without the authorities showing any interest in him. Nor have there been any reports indicating that either the newspaper in question or the complainant himself were of interest to the authorities after the publication of the article. On these grounds, on 28 May 2010, the Migration Court rejected the complainant’s appeal. 4.5 On 17 June 2010, the complainant appealed against the judgment of the Migration Court. On 27 August 2010, the Migration Court of Appeal decided not to grant the applicant leave to appeal. Finally, the State party informed the Committee that it had received information from the Swedish Migration Board that the complainant had left Swedish territory on 20 November 2010. 4.6 As to the admissibility of the communication, the State party explains that it is not aware of the same matter being or having been subject to another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that, with reference to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, domestic remedies have been exhausted. The State party contends, however, that the complainant’s assertion that he is at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of the Convention fails to attain the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. It submits that the communication is manifestly unfounded, and thus it should be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention and rule 107, paragraph (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedure (CAT/C/3/Rev.4). 4.7 The State party adds that if the Committee declares the communication admissible, on the merits the issue would be whether the expulsion of the complainant would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention. In this respect, the State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which the aim of the determination of whether the forced return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk5 of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned.6 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. 4.8 As far as the general human rights situation in the United Republic of Tanzania is concerned, the State party submits that according to the section “Freedom of speech and press” in the United States Department of State country reports on Tanzania (2009 and 2010), independent media were active and expressed a wide variety of views without restrictions. According to the same reports, the President of Tanzania publicly expressed support for the press freedom, and journalists were generally able to publish articles alleging, for example, corruption by Government officials, without reprisals. Publications such as the opposition newspaper Tanzania Daima are issued on a daily basis. The report also mentioned that in 2009, the Ministry of Information, Culture and Sports convoked four 5 6 Emphasis is added by the State party. Communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. 5