CAT/C/50/D/467/2011 compatible with the reality in Yemen, as claimed by the State party. Furthermore, his accounts were detailed, substantiated and credible. The first complainant recalls that he never claimed to have been a high-ranking member of the Southern Movement. Nevertheless, he was perceived as a critic of the Government by the Yemeni authorities and put under intense pressure. His departure from Yemen in January 2010 was only possible with the help of the friend and significant financial investments, and due to his low profile. 5.7 The first complainant argues that there is a real and imminent risk that he would be subjected to torture or other inhuman and degrading treatment if he were forcibly returned to Yemen. He adds that by expelling him and his family to that country, Switzerland would violate its obligations under article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained 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, 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5(b), of the Convention, it 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 in the instant case the State party has recognized that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the first complainant and his family to Yemen would violate 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. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the first complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Yemen. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 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 a 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 return. 7.3 The Committee recalls its General Comment No. 1, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the risk does not have to meet the test of being “highly probable” (para. 6), the Committee notes that the burden of proof generally falls on the complainant, who must present an 12