CAT/C/44/D/356/2008 5.8 The complainant further notes that HADEP was banned by the Turkish authorities in 1997. DEHAP was its successor organisation, but it was also banned, in 2005. The political parties’ archives having being confiscated, no documents could be obtained 10 . 5.9 Finally, the complainant claims that as far the death of his uncle is concerned, there is no contradiction in his statements. The mysterious “conflict between villagers” is a reference taken directly from the police report in this connection 11 . The complainant reiterated that his uncle died after the authorities attempted to obtain from him information on the complainant’s whereabouts. 5.10 On 18 June 2009, the complainant submitted a copy of a medical report on his health status prepared by a psychiatrist on 3 June 2009. According to the medical expert the complainant is highly traumatized, has panic attacks, is very depressed and has Posttraumatic stress disorder, and his state has significantly deteriorated 12 . Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6. Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it 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. The Committee further notes that it is uncontested that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the communication. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complaint admissible and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration on the merits 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainant's removal to Turkey would constitute a violation of the State party's obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.2 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Turkey, 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 he would be returned. The Committee reiterates 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 10 The complainant adds that he still expects written information from the two Turkish attorneys (see paragraph 4.12 above) from TIHV and IHD. In any case, the lawyers have allegedly indicated that IHD possess no information on the Daltepe Köyü incident. 11 A copy of the report in question, in Turkish and German, is submitted to the Committee. 12 It transpires from the report that the complainant was in psychiatric care from 7 to 27 March 2009. 9