CAT/C/66/D/827/2017 application for revocation. 20 Considering that Moroccan law does not specify whether this remedy has suspensive effect, that the State party cites no examples of applications filed for revocation and cites no specific examples of jurisprudence clarifying the suspensive nature of an application for revocation,21 the Committee is not in a position to conclude that the fact that the complainant did not submit an application for revocation prevents him from submitting his complaint to the Committee. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee finds that article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention does not preclude it from declaring the communication admissible. 8.4 The Committee also notes that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the complaint on the grounds of insufficient substantiation, since the complainant alleges that the extradition request from Turkey was of a political nature. The State party indicates that the complainant fully benefited from all fair trial guarantees and that the Court of Cassation has not found that the extradition request submitted by the Turkish authorities is of a political nature. The Committee observes that the complainant, for his part, argues that he faces a risk if extradited, as a person related to the Hizmet movement, which was described as a terrorist group by the Turkish Government. The Committee therefore finds that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated his complaint for the purposes of admissibility. 8.5 The Committee accordingly finds that the complaint is admissible under article 22 of the Convention with respect to the alleged violation of article 3, and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 9.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the extradition of the complainant to Turkey would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or 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. The Committee recalls, first and foremost, that the prohibition against torture is absolute and non-derogable and that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked by a State party to justify acts of torture. 22 The principle of “non-refoulement” of persons to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture is similarly absolute. 23 9.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the alleged victim would be in danger of being subjected to torture, the Committee recalls that, under article 3 (2) of the Convention, States parties must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the State of return. In the present case, however, the Committee must determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture if he is extradited to Turkey. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture on extradition to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 24 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 25 20 21 22 23 24 25 8 R.A.Y. v. Morocco (CAT/C/52/D/525/2012), paras. 6.3 and 6.4. Ibid., para. 6.3. Committee’s general comment No. 2 (2007) on the implementation of article 2 by States parties, para. 5. Committee’s general comment No. 4, para. 9. Alhaj Ali v. Morocco, para. 8.3, R.A.Y. v. Morocco, para. 7.2, and L.M. v. Canada (CAT/C/63/D/488/2012), para. 11.3. Kalinichenko v. Morocco, para. 15.3. GE.19-10059