CAT/C/44/D/355/2008 the grant of a hardship permit is subject to the approval of the federal authorities, that it is an extraordinary, non-mandatory and humanitarian remedy, and is subject to criteria which are entirely dissociated from the conditions stipulated in article 3 of the Convention. So long as there is a procedure still open whereby the complainant could obtain a more favourable status, the cantonal authorities of the State party cannot take a decision on the grant of the humanitarian permit. Further additional comments by the author 8.1 By letter of 9 January 2010, after being notified of the State party’s position, the complainant asked the Committee to cancel the suspension and to take a decision on the complaint. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. As required under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.2 The Committee takes note that the State party challenges the admissibility of the complaint for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. The State party asserts that if the complainant had paid the fee for the procedure, the judge could have ruled on his application for review but that, in the absence of such a payment, the application must be considered inadmissible. The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that he is experiencing financial hardship because he is not permitted to work or receive social assistance and that he was consequently unable to pay the fee for the review procedure. The Committee takes note of the fact that the complainant was not even permitted to make a partial payment in advance. The Committee considers that, given the complainant’s personal circumstances, it was unfair to oblige him to pay the sum of 1,200 Swiss francs in order for his last application for review to be admissible. This view is based on the fact that the complainant was not authorized to work within the State party’s territory and that he appears to have been denied social assistance. It therefore seems unreasonable to deny the complainant the possibility of applying for a review of his case on financial grounds considering his difficult financial circumstances. The Committee therefore considers that the argument that the complaint is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies does not stand in the present case. The complaint is therefore admissible under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee must determine whether the deportation of the complainant to the Republic of the Congo would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 10.2 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all relevant considerations, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of such an assessment, however, is to determine whether the individual concerned would personally be at risk of torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence in a country of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass 8 GE.10-42782