CAT/C/47/D/374/2009 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. 8.2 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the Committee does not consider any communication unless it has ascertained that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes the State party’s acknowledgment that domestic remedies have been exhausted and therefore finds that the complainants have complied with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 8.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, since the complainants’ claim that they are at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Azerbaijan fails to rise to the level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. The Committee is of the opinion that the arguments before it raise substantive issues which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility considerations alone. Accordingly, the Committee decides that the communication is admissible with regard to article 3 of the Convention and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 9.2 The Committee notes that the State party has issued a resident permit to the complainants’ daughter, A.M. Therefore, the Committee decides to discontinue the part of the communication relating to A.M. 9.3 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainants’ deportation to Azerbaijan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, not to expel or return (refouler) a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.4 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in Azerbaijan (art. 3, para. 1). The aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainants run a real personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which they 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 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. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person may not be subjected to torture under his or her specific circumstances. 9.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No.1 on the implementation of article 3,10 which states that the Committee must assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited to the country of origin. The risk need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has established 10 12 Committee’s general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX.