CAT/C/47/D/312/2007 before the Revolutionary Court in Tehran, as well as the sentence in absentia to five years’ imprisonment by the Revolutionary Court, with reference to the general treatment of journalists and the current serious human rights situation in Iran. 3.2 The complainant submits that the Norwegian asylum authorities failed to ensure that the consideration of his asylum case respected due process, by focusing solely on the verification of the court documents from the Revolutionary Court in Tehran. In this regard, he maintains that the authorities placed a disproportionate weight on the alleged forgery of the court documents that the complainant presented in support of his asylum application, and did not conduct any further investigation of his case. The complainant submits that he had no control over the content of the court document providing the sentence in absentia, since it was sent to him by his relatives, after his arrival in Norway. 3.3 The complainant further maintains that the two summons to appear before the Revolutionary Court in Tehran are uncontested, and the fact that he did not appear before the Revolutionary Court following those summons, in and of itself substantiates the risk that he will be arrested and subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, if he is returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 3.4 According to the complainant, the case is not under consideration by any other international procedure of investigation or settlement, and all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 3.5 Interim measures were requested by the complainant in the initial submission of the complaint dated 23 October 2006, but were denied by the Committee, since at the time of the request the author was in hiding. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1 On 16 October 2007, the State party challenged the admissibility of the complaint for lack of substantiation even on a prima facie basis in relation to the complainant’s claims under article 3 of the Convention, and argued that the complaint should be declared inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, as manifestly unfounded. 4.2 On the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State party does not submit that the author has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, in the light of the fact that the complainant exhausted all administrative remedies and that the complainant’s request for legal aid was rejected, effectively barring him from pursuing judicial remedies before the Norwegian courts. The State party refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence regarding the exhaustion of judicial remedies in the absence of legal aid.1 4.3 The State party submits that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country, and recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence in that regard.2 Additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. As regards the current human rights situation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, the State party acknowledges that the working conditions for journalists and other media representatives in that country are generally poor. 4.4 The State party notes, however, that in its view, the complainant did not present any reliable facts to support his claim that he would be at a personal and foreseeable risk of 1 2 4 Communication No. 238/2003, Z.T. (No. 2) v. Norway, decision adopted on 14 November 2005. Communications No. 233/2003, Agiza v. Sweden, decision adopted on 20 May 2005, and No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006.