CAT/C/48/D/382/2009 the asylum procedure. He maintains that the purpose of his communication has not been to review the decisions of the Swiss authorities but to seek justice. He also opposes the allegations of contradictions and inconsistencies by the State party, which are not substantial in his view. He makes a reference to the traumatizing events he went through, including the departure from his country and the questioning by unknown officials of a foreign country. He further stated that it was not easy to provide an identical account of events during the first and second hearings by the asylum authorities. Disputing the State party’s consideration of the medical certificate as unreliable, the complainant suggests that the Committee contact the dentist to verify the reasons for treatment. 5.2 In addition, the complainant contests the State party’s consideration of the arrest warrant as forgery and considers such claims to be inaccurate and misleading. While conceding the practice of manipulation with the official documents in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, he opposes the State party’s challenge to the authenticity of the arrest warrant. He suggests that the best way to refute any doubts would be to seek further clarifications from the security authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo through the Swiss Embassy. 5.3 The complainant recalls that he was a vigilant member of MLC and played an active role during the electoral campaign in 2006. According to the complainant, the documents proving his affiliation to MLC were seized during his arrest as explained to the Swiss authorities in the context of asylum procedure. As regards the structure of MLC, the complainant argues that he answered all the questions to the best of his knowledge and draws attention to the records of the asylum procedure hearings. Concerning the inconsistencies surrounding the events subsequent to his beating, the complainant states that he regained consciousness in Kimbanseke without knowing the circumstances of how he got there. For the rest of the queries, he refers to the records of the hearings. 5.4 Finally, the complainant contends that the above explanations and circumstances of his case fall within the scope of the general comment No. 1 of the Committee and reasserts that he is afraid of returning to the country as the majority of persons arrested in connection with the events of 22 and 23 March 2007 have remained in detention without conviction or due process. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6. Before considering any claim contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture 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. The Committee further notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party does not contest admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return 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 assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal 6