CAT/C/71/D/904/2018 5.5 Lastly, the complainant notes that, in spite of the reports referred to by the State party, the human rights situation in Ethiopia is still fragile and, given her personal circumstances, she maintains that she faces a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to ill-treatment, in breach of article 3 of the Convention, if deported to Ethiopia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee must decide whether the communication 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. 6.2 In accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, the Committee shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that the complainant appealed the negative decision on her asylum application to the Migration Court and that she sought leave to appeal to the Migration Court of Appeal, which denied her request on 7 August 2018. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from examining the present communication. 6.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the claims put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues that should be examined on the merits. As the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Ethiopia would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Ethiopia. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows 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 show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.3 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, 3 6 See, e.g., E.T. v. Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.3; and Y.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/822/2017), para. 7.3.