CAT/C/38/D/268/2005 page 7 political activities in general involve an inherent risk of torture in Pakistan. None of the Swiss authorities ever tried to make a serious assessment of the complainant’s credibility on the basis of forensic psychiatric criteria. Thus, the complainant’s credibility is not seriously in question in the light of the fact that even the State party has explicitly accepted the facts put forward by the complainant. 7.5 The complainant noted that the State party admits that, in general, it does not attach much credibility to documents from Pakistan. It is therefore not only reasonable and not in any way surprising that such documents were not submitted during the asylum procedure. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 8.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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. In the present case, the Committee also notes that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party has not challenged admissibility. It therefore considers that the communication is admissible and proceeds to an examination of the merits of the case. 8.2 In accordance with article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the Committee must determine whether or not there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to Pakistan. To do this, the Committee must take account of 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, it must be established whether or not the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. Consequently, 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 be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, 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. 8.3 The Committee recalls its general observation on the implementation of article 3, according to which the existence of a risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion, and that, in any case, “the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable”.4 8.4 In the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant has never been subjected to torture or ill-treatment in Pakistan. He was detained for only one day, from 3 to 4 May 2004, at a police station, and he does not claim to have been a victim of ill-treatment. 4 A/53/44, annex IX, para. 6.