- 144 to torture as set out in article 1 of the Convention, and would, in any event, not be inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or person acting in an official capacity. The Committee, however, is of the opinion that the State party’s ratione materiae argument raises an issue which cannot be dealt with at the admissibility stage. As the Committee sees no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. 7.2 The Committee must decide whether the forced return of the petitioner to Somalia would violate the State party’s obligation, under article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention, not to expel or return (refouler) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In order to reach its conclusion the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim, however, is to determine whether the individual concerned would personally risk torture in the country to which he or she 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 sufficient grounds for determining whether the particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced 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. 7.3 The Committee notes the petitioner’s claim that he faces a real risk of being tortured if returned to Somalia on the basis of his father’ position as a police officer in the previous Government, his own position with UNOSOM and his vulnerability as a member of the Shikal clan. In support of his claim, he outlines past incidents of torture directed against himself and his family. The Committee observes that the State party does not deny that these incidents may have occurred, but argues that the petitioner has not been consistent in his description of events and that these attacks were more likely to have occurred as part of the general climate of violence in Mogadishu at the time rather than as a deliberate attempt to target the petitioner for the reasons outlined by him. The Committee also observes that the petitioner has failed to explain the inconsistencies in his description of the attacks, which raise doubts with the Committee as to his credibility. 7.4 In addition, the Committee recalls that, even if the evidence of past torture provided by the petitioner were not in question, the aim of the Committee’s examination of the communication is to ascertain whether the petitioner would risk being subjected to torture now, if returned to Somalia. Given the composition of the new Transitional Government, including members of the Shikal clan itself, the Committee is of the opinion that the petitioner would not now face such a risk. In light of the foregoing, and while recognizing the ongoing widespread violations of human rights in Somalia, the Committee finds that the petitioner has not established that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention.