CAT/C/43/D/348/2008 documents from his country and that the State party has assessed them in a subjective manner. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6. Before considering any claim contained in a communication, 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 notes furthermore that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party does not contest the admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee considers the complaint admissible and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Côte d’Ivoire would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or 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. 7.2 In assessing the risk of torture, the Committee takes into account all relevant considerations, in accordance with article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of this assessment, however, is to determine whether the individuals concerned would personally risk torture in the country to which they would be returned. It follows that the existence in a country of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on his or her return to that country. Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the complainant would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person may not be subjected to torture in his or her specific situation. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment on article 3, as well as its jurisprudence, according to which it is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he or she to be expelled, returned or extradited, and the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. The risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, but the complainant must establish that the grounds for believing there is such a danger are substantial and that such danger is personal and present.5 7.4 In the present case, the complainant asserts that he runs the risk of being tortured by Liberian rebels in Côte d’Ivoire, by villagers in Para and by the authorities who may be informed of his case. The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the complainant’s account is improbable, that he has not claimed to have been politically active, nor to have been subjected to torture, and that it is unlikely that he will be persecuted by the authorities. The Committee observes that, since the peace agreement in Côte d’Ivoire, there has been no generalized violence in the country, nor are there consistent, gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. It observes moreover that the complainant’s allegations are merely theories and that the risk posed by Liberian rebels and 5 GE.09-46730 A/53/44, annex IX (21 November 1997), paras. 6–7. 5