CAT/C/35/D/258/2004 Page 12 Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee further notes that the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the complaint on the ground of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies and that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated his allegations for purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee considers the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Iran would violate 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. 8.3 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk in the country to which he 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 tha t a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.4 The Committee recalls its General Comment on article 3, which states that the Committee is to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of torture if returned, and that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. 8.5 In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been tortured and imprisoned on previous occasions by the Iranian authorities because of his activities against the current regime and that, after his arrival in Canada, he was diagnosed with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder. This is not contested by the State party. 8.6 Although the complainant’s torture and imprisonment occurred between 1979 and 1987, i.e. not in the recent past, the complainant claims that he is still involved with the Iranian opposition forces. The State party has expressed doubts about the nature of such involvement. However, there are no clear indications, from the information before the Committee, that such involvement is inexistent. In this regard, the complainant has submitted a number of letters referring to his activities as a member of the monarchist opposition group. In one of them, fears are expressed that he might be imprisoned, tortured and eventually executed if he returns to Iran under existing circumstances. The complainant has also submitted information in support of his claim that the Monarchists are still active inside and outside the country and that they continue to be persecuted in Iran. Furthermore, the State party has not denied that the complainant cooperated with the Canadian Intelligence and Security Service in 2003. The complainant submitted such