CAT/C/47/D/347/2008 inadmissible for non-payment of such fees on 14 November 2002, the complainant was able to appeal against this decision to the Federal Administrative Court on 16 January 2003, and that she was represented by a lawyer on this occasion. The Committee notes that she did not raise any grievance in respect of the appeals procedure to the various instances and that nothing in the case file suggests that the complainant has suffered any harm as a result of the lack of legal representation or the denial of legal aid. 9.3 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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. 9.4 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 an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which 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 grounds 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. 9.5 The Committee acknowledges the dire human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, especially for women,12 and recalls its jurisprudence on the issue.13 The Committee observes that the State party has taken this factor into account in evaluating the risk the complainant might face if returned to her country. It concludes, moreover, on the basis of information on the prevailing situation in Kinshasa,14 where the complainant would be returned, that the weight to be attached to this factor is not sufficient to prevent her removal. The Committee therefore proceeds to an analysis of the personal risk facing the complainant with respect to article 3 of the Convention. 12 13 14 GE.12-40160 See, inter alia, the second joint report of seven United Nations experts on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (A/HRC/13/63, 8 March 2010), as well as the report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation of human rights and the activities of her Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (A/HRC/13/64, 28 January 2010). Communication No. 322/2007, Njamba and Balikosa v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 May 2010, para. 9.5. The Committee has requested the views of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) regarding the return of asylum-seekers to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including Kinshasa. In the guidelines that it made available to the Committee on 11 November 2009, UNHCR makes a distinction between the situations of asylum-seekers as a function of their region of origin: UNHCR considers that any asylum-seeker who is a resident of North Kivu, South Kivu, Maniema or Orientale provinces (Ituri, Bas-Uélé and Haut-Uélé districts) needs international protection, given the massive human rights violations currently taking place in these conflict zones. UNHCR is of the view that requests for asylum from residents of the other areas of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (including Kinshasa) should be considered on a case-by-case basis in order to determine their acceptability under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. UNHCR nevertheless invites States to take into account any pertinent humanitarian considerations, as well as their obligations under human rights conventions. 11