CAT/C/56/D/580/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim submitted 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 instant case the State party contests that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies with regard to article 12 of the Convention. However, the Committee observes that the State party has not contested that: on 26 February 2014, the complainant filed an appeal with the Ministry of Justice in relation to his allegations under article 12; on 22 May 2014, the Ministry rejected the appeal stating that this is a matter to be addressed to the Courts; and the matter had been addressed by the City Court and by the High Court, respectively, on 12 December and 20 December 2013. In the circumstances, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present case. 6.3 The Committee recalls that for a claim to be admissible under article 22 of the Convention and rule 113 (b) of its rules of procedure, it must rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility.12 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the communication is manifestly ill-founded due to a lack of substantiation. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues under articles 3, 12 and 16 of the Convention, and that those arguments should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, 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 Turkey. 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.13 It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual 12 13 12 See, inter alia, communication No. 308/2006, K.A. v. Sweden, inadmissibility decision of 16 November 2007, para. 7.2. See, inter alia, communication No. 470/2011, X. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 24 December 2014.