CAT/C/46/D/379/2009 invoked by the complainant do not suffice to show that the alleged risk of torture fulfills the requirement of being foreseeable, real and personal, and, therefore, her return to DRC would not constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. 8.2 In her submission of 2 September 2010, the complainant maintains that her efforts to locate her family brought no results. She submits that she has substantiated her claim with written evidence, the risk of torture being foreseeable, real and personal. On 16 September 2010, she submitted two reports produced by the UN which give credible information about the extremely difficult human rights situation in the DRC, and a copy of the Committee’s decision in respect of the communication no. 322/200710. On 4 October 2010, the complainant provided information about the fate of other persons that have the same background or have been in the same situation as the complainant herself. She submits that in 2002 a catholic priest was arrested because he criticized the regime, and was released only after the Cardinal Etshou had threatened the regime with a mass demonstration. The Cardinal died a few weeks later in Brussels, most likely he was poisoned. Another pastor from Katanga, Theodore Ngoy, was forced to flee and is now a refugee in Canada. Kotino Fernando, a pastor previously working in Kinshasa, has been sentenced to death and subsequently his sentence was commuted to 20 years’ imprisonment. Therefore, she maintains that she would be arrested upon return and exposed to persecution and torture due to her previous political and religious activities in DRC. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 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. 9.2 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 complainant has complied with article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention. 9.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, on the basis that it fails to rise to the basic 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. 9.4 Accordingly, the Committee finds the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 10 The complainant submitted the following documents: the copy of the Committee’s decision in communication no. 322/2007, Njamba v. Sweden; Second joint report of seven United Nations experts on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 8 March 2010, UN. Doc. A/HRC/13/63; Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the activities of her Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 28 January 2010, UN. Doc. A/HRC/13/64. 13