CAT/C/61/D/625/2014 at risk of torture because of his religion. It refers to publicly available background information, 43 according to which some Christians suffer discrimination and attacks in Pakistan, and that there are reports of a general failure of the police to investigate, arrest or prosecute those responsible for the abuse suffered by religious minorities. 44 However, there is also evidence of measures taken by the authorities to protect them against violence.45 The State party reiterates that Christians can practise their religion in Pakistan, and adds that, although they face increased discrimination and are targeted because of their religion, the evidence shows that they are not, in general, subject to a real risk of persecution or inhuman or degrading treatment. 46 The State party refers to a decision of the Human Rights Committee regarding a complaint filed by a Christian from Pakistan alleging persecution because of her religion. Taking into account the recent amendments to the blasphemy laws, and the comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence conducted by the State party, according to which the author had not been in conflict with the authorities in Pakistan, the Committee considered that her deportation to Pakistan would not violate article 7 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.47 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 complaint from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies.48 The Committee therefore finds that the requirement under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention has been met. 7.3 The State party maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible, pursuant to rule 113 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, as it is manifestly unfounded. The Committee, however, observes that the complainant has sufficiently detailed the facts and the basis of his claims of violations of the Convention and thus considers that the complaint has been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 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, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 43 44 45 46 47 48 10 See United Kingdom, Home Office, “Country information and guidance. Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts”; and European Asylum Support Office, Country of Origin Information Report. Pakistan: Country Overview (Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2015). Available at www.easo.europa.eu/sites/default/files/public/EASO_COI_Report_Pakistan-CountryOverview_final.pdf. See United Kingdom, Home Office, “Country information and guidance. Pakistan: Christians and Christian converts”, p. 9. Ibid. Ibid. p. 6. See Human Rights Committee, communications No. 2351/2014, R.G. et al. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 2 November 2015; and No. 2291/2013, A and B v. Denmark, Views adopted on 13 July 2016. See, for example, communication No. 455/2011, X.Q.L. v. Australia, decision adopted on 2 May 2014, para. 8.2.