CAT/C/48/D/396/2009 in Lomé on 26 February 2006, the Federal Office for Migration initially disputed that it had happened, but it did not repeat the argument in its statement of 9 November 2006, which proves that it has accepted that the event did occur. The fact that two perpetrators of the attack have already been arrested and tried proves that if the complainant was arrested, he too would suffer a similar fate. Furthermore, there was no inconsistency regarding the complainant’s place of residence in Togo. The Federal Office for Migration acknowledged in its decision of 8 September 2010 that he had been in hiding in Agouegan. At the registration centre, the complainant had been questioned about his last address, which explains why it did not match his official address in Lomé. 5.4 The complainant refutes the allegation that he mentioned the problems he faced in 2003 only at a late stage in the proceedings since he had already mentioned the report he had made about a person attempting to vote twice in 2003 during the first hearing at the registration centre. He had also mentioned at that time the events surrounding the meeting of 16 April 2005. 5.5 The complainant concludes that the statements and evidence submitted show that if he returned to Togo he would be subjected to treatment contrary to 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 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. 6.2 The Committee further notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted pursuant to article 22, paragraph 5 (b), and that the State party does not contest admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 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. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainant to Togo 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 would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 Regarding the complainant’s allegations under article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in Togo. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being 8 GE.12-43942