CAT/C/46/D/352/2008 matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 10.2 The Committee has noted that the State party has challenged the admissibility of the communication, as the complainant has failed to exhaust available domestic remedies, as his fifth request for a revision by the Federal Administrative Tribunal was dismissed without examination, because he did not pay the corresponding fees in advance. The Committee notes further, as acknowledged by the State party, that the judge in charge of the complainant’s case, when rejecting his request for legal aid, preliminary assessed the complainant’s revision request as presenting minimal chances of success, and expressed doubts as to the possible abusive nature of the request. 10.3 The Committee notes that the complainant has filed a number of previous appeals, including requests for revision, and that the majority of these were rejected. It also notes that the complainant has requested the revision in question on the basis of a letter confirming the authenticity of a court record where a P.K.K. supporter had invoked his name. The Committee notes that, in any event, the court record in question was already submitted and examined by the Swiss asylum authorities in the context of the complainants’ previous appeals. In light of this, and in spite of the State party’s explanation that the judge in charge did not asses the merits of the case and that if the case was to be rejected, the judge in question would have had to seek an additional opinion of another judge, the Committee is not convinced that this particular remedy constitutes sufficient ground to prevent it from examining the merits of the communication, as far as the complainant’s allegations are sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 10.4 The Committee further notes that the State party does not explain why the particular remedy invoked – a fifth request for revision - would be pertinent to the case under examination. It considers that the State party has limited itself to invoke the availability of the remedy in question and its potential effectiveness, without providing further explanation. In the circumstances, and in light of the information on file, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the complainants have provided sufficient information to permit it to proceed with the examination of the merits of the case. 10.5 The State party has invoked a second ground for the inadmissibility of the communication, namely that its authorities have concluded that the presence of the complainants in Switzerland was not established, and that therefore article 3 does not apply in the present case. The Committee has also noted the complainant’s counsel reply (see paragraph 7.2 above) - i.e. that he is in constant contact with the complainants and receives regular phone calls from them. In the circumstances, the Committee does not consider that the provisions of the Convention do not apply in the present case. 10.6 In light of the above considerations, the Committee decides that the communication is admissible, as far as it raises issues under article 3 of the Convention, and decides to proceed with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainants to Turkey would violate the State party's obligations 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. 11.2 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant and his wife 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 12