CAT/C/71/D/885/2018 reason for this has already been explained in the communication to the Committee. Even if the Iranian judgment leaves many questions unanswered, the mere existence of a judgment against the complainant is worthy of note. The judgment was set in motion and orchestrated by the girl’s father in order to manipulate the complainant and his family while preserving the appearance of the rule of law. 5.4 With regard to the State party’s allegations regarding the possibility of another Iranian judgment having been issued before the one submitted, and with reference to its title of “enforcement order”, the complainant submits that the State party has taken his statements and explanations into consideration only with the intention of drawing contradictions from them. The Iranian judgment submitted provides sufficient proof that the complainant would be at risk of facing difficulties if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it should not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case, the State party does not contest the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies by the complainant or, more generally, the admissibility of the complaint. 6.3 The Committee considers that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention and that those issues should be examined on the merits. The Committee finds no obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication and thus declares it admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 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. 7.2 In the present case, the Committee must determine whether the complainant’s removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant faces a personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In assessing that risk, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the possible existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned faces a personal, 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 at risk of being subjected to torture on return to that country. Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned faces a personal 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. Moreover, the Committee notes that, since the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a party to the Convention, in the event of a violation GE.21-12735 7