CAT/C/43/D/331/2007 5.3 The complainant reaffirms that he is indeed the person mentioned in the letter of 10 January 2007 from the President of the Ligue burundaise des droits de l’homme, which confirms the personal risk to which he is exposed. The complainant accordingly rejects the State party’s argument that he does not personally risk torture. 5.4 As for the argument that torture is not systemic in Burundian prisons, the complainant mentions a report by the independent expert on the situation of human rights in Burundi, which refers to the growing number of cases of torture, including at the time of arrest. This report contradicts Canada’s allegations that torture is not a systemic practice in Burundian prisons. 5.5 Lastly, the complainant maintains that he applied for a stay of his deportation to Burundi within the statutory time limit and that the legal precedent that prompted the Federal Court to reject the complainant’s application pertains to applications made just hours before deportation, not several days before as in the complainant’s case. 5.6 The complainant believes the fact that he was unjustly “labelled” as a member of a criminal organization from the start of the procedure distorted the authorities’ judgement and led to him being denied refugee status protection. The “flagrant” injustice of the Board’s decision affected all subsequent decisions. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering an allegation in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not the communication is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. It has ascertained, as it is required to in accordance with 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. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has raised an objection to admissibility based on the fact that the complaint is manifestly without foundation because of a lack of evidence, and that the alleged risk to the complainant does not meet the definition contained in article 1 of the Convention. The complaint would therefore supposedly be incompatible with article 22 of the Convention. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments before it appear to raise issues that need to be considered on the merits, rather than simply for the point of view of admissibility. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee must decide whether the complainant’s deportation to Burundi would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 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. 7.2 In reaching this decision, 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. The aim of the determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual 8 GE.09-46723