CAT/C/71/D/866/2018 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 7.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee takes note of the State party’s claim that the complainant failed to appeal the decision of 18 September 2015 by which the State Secretariat for Migration dismissed her request for a review of her first asylum application in the light of additional elements. The Committee notes, however, that it is uncontested that the complainant exhausted all available domestic remedies against the decision of the Federal Office for Migration, dated 17 November 2014, rejecting her first asylum application, and the decision of the State Secretariat for Migration, dated 13 April 2016, rejecting her second asylum application. Consequently, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the communication. 7.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forcible removal of the complainant to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) 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 or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee notes that the prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable and that no exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture. 27 8.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of the determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on 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 flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.28 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the nonrefoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which the person is facing deportation, either as an individual or as a member of a group that may be at risk of being tortured in the State of destination. The Committee recalls, from the same 27 28 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 2 (2007), para. 5. See, for example, E.T. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.3; and Y.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/822/2017), para. 7.3. 9