CAT/C/59/D/634/2014 returned or extradited to Ingushetia. They add that there are no factual inconsistencies in the first complainant’s explanations, only minor differences, which are due to the torture he was subjected to and his suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The complainants submit that the aforementioned factors further emphasize, even more strongly than in F.K. v. Denmark referred to by the State party (see para. 6.6), that the complainant’s examination for signs of torture should have been conducted at the Forensic Clinic at Rigshospitalet, which is the official clinic for torture investigations. With reference to the State party’s argument that the Refugee Appeals Board sometimes may order an examination of an asylum seeker for signs of torture if the Board finds the asylum seeker credible, the complainants submit that the first complainant’s examination for signs of torture is in fact necessary to prove his credibility. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim submitted in a communication, 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 8.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainants raise substantive issues, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, and declares the communication admissible. Since both the State party and the complainants have provided submissions on the merits of the case, the Committee proceeds immediately with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 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 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainants to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return (“refouler”) a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 9.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being 13