CAT/C/66/D/776/2016 State party’s willingness to objectively and impartially evaluate the risk faced by the complainants. 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 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee 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 present case, the State party has not contested that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 6.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainants to Pakistan would constitute a violation of 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 risk being subjected to torture. This includes torture or other ill-treatment at the hands of non-State entities, including groups unlawfully inflicting severe pain or suffering for purposes prohibited by the Convention, and over which the receiving State has either no control or only partial de facto control, or whose acts it is unable to prevent, nor to counter their impunity.11 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Pakistan. 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. 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 concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 12 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in a State to which he or she is facing deportation, either as an individual or a member of a group which may be at risk of being 11 12 8 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 30; S. v. Sweden (CAT/C/65/D/691/2015), para. 9.2. E.g., E.T. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.3. GE.19-13276