CAT/C/54/D/539/2013 Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 3 January 2014, the complainant submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. He states that the State party failed to explain why “the application of the State party’s comprehensive legislation concerning asylum proceedings has failed” in the present case and that it merely reiterates the arguments and considerations made by the Swedish Migration Board. The complainant observes that the State party neither acknowledges nor denies that he was subjected to torture in the past, but only refers to a number of circumstances and facts allegedly demonstrating that his story is not credible. The actual act of torture has been neglected and not properly investigated. 5.2 The complainant adds that, in December 2013, the Swedish Amnesty Fund granted him the necessary funding to undergo psychological and medical examinations in order to investigate the impact of the ill-treatment to which he was subjected in Chechnya.13 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained 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. 6.2 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 acknowledged that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication. It declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant 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. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Russian Federation. In assessing that 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 subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the 13 10 No further information, in particular on the results of the examination, was provided.