CAT/C/54/D/556/2013 complainant and his brother were arrested and tortured, and that their parents’ house was burned down, a clear sign of foreseeable, real and personal risk. State party’s further observations 6. In a note verbale dated 9 June 2014, the State party submitted additional observations. It reiterates its previous observations on the human rights situation in Chechnya, and claims that the expulsion of the complainant would not lead to a violation of article 3 of the Convention owing to this situation. Regarding the contention that there should have been a medical examination by the Migration Board or the Migration Court, the State party submits that it is up to the complainant to establish a prima facie case. The complainant himself expressly stated that, apart from a scar on his eyebrow, there were no visible scars or other injuries on his body from the torture that he allegedly suffered. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22 (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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that in the present case the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee must determine whether the deportation of the complainant to the Russian Federation would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) 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. The Committee recalls that the existence in a country of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself a sufficient ground for believing that an individual would be subjected to torture.13 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that an individual might not be subjected to torture. 8.3 Recalling its general comment No. 1 (1997), the Committee reaffirms that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, but it must be personal, present, foreseeable and real.14 13 14 8 See communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, para. 15.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November