CAT/C/50/D/439/2010 the complainant was not recognized by the authorities of his country. For the Iranian authorities, the very fact that the complainant is in Europe is an indication of his opposition to the regime, an indication strengthened by the other elements in the case file: he is a member of a persecuted ethnic minority and of the B. clan, and his brother is politically active and is wanted by the authorities. According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, merely participating in a demonstration can bring about arrest, detention and torture (Judgment of 9 March 2010, application No. 41827/07, R.C. v. Sweden). 5.5 The complainant adds that the Iranian regime is unpredictable and repressive, guided by ideology and not procedure, and by a political view of the threats it is facing. Even someone who has never carried out any political activities can be perceived as an opponent if that is the opinion of the regime. The danger of persecution is thus high owing to the very unpredictability of the regime. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Examination of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims 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. It also notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted. Accordingly, the Committee considers that there are no obstacles to admissibility of the complaint. It considers the complaint admissible and thus proceeds immediately to the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 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, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the State party’s deportation of the complainant to the Islamic Republic of Iran would constitute a violation of its 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 or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 Regarding the complainant’s allegations under article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture if expelled to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention, which states that the risk of torture need not be highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In this regard, the Committee has established in previous decisions that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”.10 As to 10 GE.13-45608 See communications Nos. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision of 14 November 2003, para. 7.3, 9