CAT/C/68/D/863/2018 6.3 Only in very exceptional circumstances does a removal per se constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The complainant has not demonstrated such circumstances.2 The complainant herself has indicated that no medical emergency is likely to occur within three months of her removal. Moreover, it cannot be concluded from the information provided by the complainant that appropriate treatment is unavailable in her country of origin. 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 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention. While the State party challenges the admissibility of any claim under article 16 of the Convention, the Committee notes that the complainant has not invoked this provision. Consequently, the Committee finds no obstacle to admissibility and declares the communication admissible. 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 forced removal of the complainant to Côte d’Ivoire 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 the person would risk being subjected to torture. 8.3 In the present case, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Côte d’Ivoire. 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. 3 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.4 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. 5 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. 6 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement 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 he or she is facing 2 3 4 5 6 The State party cites the European Court of Human Rights, Paposhvili v. Belgium (application No. 41738/10), judgment of 13 December 2016, para. 183. See, inter alia, X and Y v. Switzerland (CAT/C/66/D/776/2016), para. 7.3. E.T. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.3. Y.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/822/2017), para. 7.2. Ibid., para. 7.3. 9