CAT/C/21/D/97/1997 page 8 expert review of the medical reports nor contacted the Centre for Torture and Trauma Survivors. This, however, should have been the logical thing to do in view of the doubts the authorities had expressed regarding the author’s credibility. 5.7 In one of the applications the author requested that, if the Appeal Board had doubts as to the credibility of the information submitted, it should allow the author an oral hearing. The Board rejected the request without submitting any reasons. According to the Aliens Act such a hearing is mandatory upon request, unless it would be immaterial for the outcome of the case. Given that the Board’s rejection was based on the author’s credibility, it is difficult to understand how an oral hearing could be considered “immaterial for the outcome of the case”. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 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. The Committee is further of the opinion that all domestic remedies have been exhausted and finds that no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication exist. Since both the State party and the author’s counsel have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds with the consideration of those merits. 6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forced return of the author to Turkey would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.3 The Committee must decide, pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 3, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to paragraph 2 of article 3, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim of the determination, however, is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would return. The existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his return to that country; specific grounds must exist indicating that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances.