CAT/C/48/D/391/2009 7.3 Finally, the State party notes that, since 14 September 2011, there is a separate case regarding impediments to the enforcement of the expulsion order in relation to J.M.A.M.A. pending before the Migration Board. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims 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, 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party has recognized that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 8.3 The Committee notes that the complainants have invoked a violation of their rights under article 16 of the Convention, without however submitting any arguments or evidence in substantiation of this claim. It concludes, therefore, that this claim has not been substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. This part of the communication is thus inadmissible. 8.4 Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Since both the State party and the complainants have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds immediately with the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 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. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainants to Egypt 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 notes the complainants’ assertion that they should be treated as a family, i.e. if the first complainant has enough reasons to be granted asylum, his family members should be granted asylum as well, and decides to examine first his claims that he faces a personal risk of being subjected to torture if forced to return to Egypt due to his previous political activity and his close family relationship with the alleged murderer of President al-Sadat. To this end, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to his country of origin. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 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 existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights 13