CAT/C/52/D/481/2011 subjected to torture by the Iranian authorities. They further maintain that the State party has attempted to undermine the complainants’ credibility by making superficial and speculative observations regarding the way in which the Iranian Secret Service typically operates, and regarding what a person in K.N.’s circumstances should and should not know about Komala. The complainants submit that K.N. was able to cite 19 members of the central committee of Komala during asylum proceedings, and that his testimony regarding his activities for Komala was not contradictory. The complainants assert that the State party’s observations on S.N.’s allegations are similarly speculative and unpersuasive. The complainants maintain that there is nothing implausible about S.N.’s failure to remember Komala-related passwords, or about his lack of knowledge of his father’s political activities or the circumstances in which the Secret Service searched the family house. The complainants argue that the State party fails to consider the complainants’ case in depth and does not attempt to counter their arguments. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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. 6.2 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 concedes that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies and does not contest the admissibility of the complaint. 6.3 The Committee considers that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention, and that these issues should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 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. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate 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. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Islamic Republic of Iran. 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 return. 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 8