CAT/C/21/D/101/1997 page 8 Turkey is such that the group most likely to be exposed to harassment, prosecution and persecution are Kurds suspected of being connected to or being sympathizers of the PKK. She therefore claims that the author's return to Turkey would have the foreseeable and necessary consequence of exposing him to a real risk of being detained and tortured. 5.6. On 29 October 1998, counsel submitted further information to the Committee, indicating that according to a Kurdish solidarity association based in Sweden, of which the author has been a member since 1996, the author is wanted by the Turkish police and the Turkish security service. It is further claimed that the author's family in Turkey has been questioned by the police on three occasions during the past six months about the whereabouts of the author. With respect to this additional information the State party states, in a letter sent to the Committee on 16 November 1998, that it has not altered its position regarding the admissibility and merits of the communication, as described above. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1. Before considering any claims contained in a communication, 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. The Committee is further of the opinion that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted, in view of the fact that no new circumstances exist on the basis of which the author could file a new application with the Aliens Appeal Board. The Committee finds that no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist. 6.2. The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the author to Turkey would violate the obligation of Sweden 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. 6.3. The Committee must decide, pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 3, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subject to torture upon return to Turkey. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to paragraph 2 of article 3, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. 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 a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; specific grounds must exist that indicate that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent