CAT/C/67/D/828/2017 4.21 Consequently, the complainant has not established a credible claim that he faces a real and serious risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to the Convention in his country of origin. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. The complainant’s counsel submitted comments on the State party’s observations on 12 June 2018. He contends that he has “learned from security sources” in the Democratic Republic of the Congo that the complainant and his father were held in incommunicado detention because of the complainant’s human rights activities and the fact that his father is a person close to General Munene, who is still living in exile and is wanted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The State party therefore, by “returning the complainant in a covert manner”, has subjected his whole family to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, 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. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s argument that, in returning him to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the State party has subjected him to torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, in violation of article 3 of the Convention. The Committee also notes that the complainant claims to be a human rights defender and a person close to General Munene. 6.4 The Committee notes, however, that the Swiss authorities did not dispute the training received by the complainant in the field of human rights or his voluntary work visiting prisons and drafting reports on prison conditions. They argued, on the other hand, that the complainant’s claim that his participation in a conference denouncing human rights violations, during which he allegedly spoke about General Munene’s situation, was the immediate reason for him fleeing the country, was not credible. The Committee observes that the complainant has not produced any evidence in support of those claims. The Swiss authorities also concluded that the complainant had not demonstrated that he had close links to General Munene. 6.5 The Committee takes note of the information submitted by the State party on the complainant’s registration for the assisted voluntary return programme, as well as the statements made by the IOM representative that the complainant has indeed returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee recalls that the existence of human rights violations in the complainant’s country of origin is not, in itself, sufficient for it to conclude that a complainant runs a personal risk of being tortured. 6.6 Finally, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that, in view of the fact that the complainant left Switzerland voluntarily, with 3,000 Swiss francs in return assistance, his complaint to the Committee should be struck from the register. The Committee also takes note of the complainant’s allegations that, prior to his return, he was in danger of being subjected to torture and that, following his return, he had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. However, it notes that the complainant constructed his allegations on the basis of general statements and did not provide any evidence in that regard. The Committee also notes that the complainant and his counsel have not produced any evidence concerning the complainant’s alleged current situation, and have not explained why they are unable to do so. In this context, the Committee notes that the case file does not contain any information on the system for follow-up of voluntary returns put in place by the State party in accordance with its treaty obligations, the functions and duties of IOM in following up GE.19-14950 7