authorities did not demand names from him prior to releasing him. Finally, he notes that the authenticity of the police “summons” to his father for information about his whereabouts had not been contested by the State party. 5.2 The complainant contends that Turkey is a State with a consistent pattern of human rights abuses, that he was tortured in the past by Turkish police,p that he was engaged in political and other activities inside and outside Turkey which make him particularly vulnerable to a risk of torture upon his return, and that the accounts of his experiences are consistent. The Committee should therefore conclude that the return of the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues 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 considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement, and that no obstacle to admissibility arises in this regard. The Committee notes that the State party does not object to the admissibility of the complaint. As the Committee sees no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. 6.2 The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainant to Turkey would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In reaching its conclusion, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim is to establish whether the individual concerned would be at personal risk of torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. In accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the person in question would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to that country. Nor does the absence of such a situation mean that a person cannot be considered at risk of being subjected to torture. 6.3 The Committee recalls its general comment on article 3, which states that the Committee must assess whether there are “substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of torture” if returned, and that the risk of torture “must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion”. The risk involved need not be “highly probable”, but it must be “personal and present”.q In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has consistently determined that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.r 6.4 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been detained and tortured previously by the Turkish authorities. However, the alleged acts of torture occurred in 1995. The Committee notes that, in accordance with its general comment on article 3, information which is considered pertinent to risk of torture 120