CAT/C/40/D/293/2006 page 11 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Examination of admissibility 9.1 Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether or not the communication 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. 9.2 The Committee notes that the State party has raised an objection to admissibility based on the fact that the communication is manifestly unfounded, in its view, given the lack of evidence and the fact that the risk alleged by the complainant does not correspond to the definition in article 1 of the Convention. The complaint would therefore be incompatible with article 22 of the Convention. The Committee is of the opinion, however, that the arguments before it raise substantive issues which should be dealt with on the merits and not on admissibility alone. In the absence of any other obstacles to admissibility, the Committee declares the communication admissible with respect to Mr. J.A.M.O. 9.3 The State party also contests admissibility with regard to Mrs. R.S.N. and Ms. T.X.M.S., respectively the wife and daughter of the complainant, on the grounds that they have visitors’ status and are not therefore subject to a deportation measure. The Committee takes note, however, of the complainant’s contention regarding the precarious nature of visitor’s status and it considers that the risk of deportation also exists for the two women. It therefore regards this part of the communication also to be admissible. Merits of the communication 10.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the complainants to Mexico would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 10.2 In evaluating the risk of torture, 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 be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.