6.7 The State party emphasizes that it has given continued attention to the situation of Kurds in Turkey. This is illustrated by the fact that the State party suspended the expulsion of Kurds to Turkey after it had been informed of the death in Turkey of a former Kurdish asylum-seeker in the Netherlands. Following the inquiry into this case and four other cases, to which counsel was presumably referring, the State party noted that the persons concerned had not experienced particular problems with the Turkish authorities after their return. These conclusions were endorsed by the judiciary of the State party, and the Government lifted the suspension on expulsions. 6.8 Finally, the State party considers that the author also has had ample time to obtain medical documents confirming the treatment to which he claims he was subjected. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee 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 examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 The Committee also notes that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the communication. The Committee finds therefore that the communication is admissible. The State party and the author have both made observations on the merits of the communication and the Committee therefore proceeds to examine the merits. 7.3 The Committee must decide, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey. 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 or her return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would