CAT/C/51/D/429/2010 Similarly, the complainant in that case was not a member of a persecuted party, but only a supporter and the Committee found that in view of his past history of detention he could be tortured again.12 The complainant further reiterates her argument that the Refugee Appeals Board should have ordered a medical examination. She maintains that, since in Denmark asylum seekers are not allowed to work she did not have the means to pay for a medical examination herself. State party’s further observations 8. On 21 October 2011, the State party submitted that the case referred to by the complainant, A.v. the Netherlands, significantly differs from her case, since in that case the authorities did not dispute that the complainant had been tortured in the past. In the present case, the Refugee Appeals Board has not considered it a fact that the complainant was subjected to torture in her home country, based on her own statement. The State party reiterates that the deportation of the complainant to Sri Lanka would not be in violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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. 9.2 The Committee considers that the communication has been substantiated for purposes of admissibility, as the complainant has sufficiently elaborated the facts and the basis of the claim for a decision by the Committee. Accordingly, the Committee finds that no obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist and thus declares it admissible. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 10.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he/she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 10.3 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 Sri Lanka. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The Committee remains seriously concerned about the continued and consistent allegations of widespread use of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment perpetrated by State actors, both the military and the police, which have continued in many parts of the country since the conflict ended in May 2009.13 However, the Committee recalls that the 12 13 Ibid., para. 6.7. See CAT/C/LKA/CO/3-4, para. 6. 9