CAT/C/60/D/639/2014 the rebels and the ethnic minorities who supported them. After the complainant left Kutum, his uncle was killed in Ombdurman. The complainant claims that, because of the political profile of his family, he faces a real danger of persecution. He argues that the only reason why he was never tortured or was not killed before is because he fled the country immediately after the violent death of his father. He claims that, if returned, he would be imprisoned immediately, interrogated and tortured. 5.9 The complainant reiterates that he took part in several political meetings in Switzerland against the Government of the Sudan and that he is an activist in the small community of the Swiss branch of the Justice and Equality Movement. The complainant notes that the State party, while not contesting that he is a member of the Justice and Equality Movement, claims that this membership does not expose him to a particular risk of persecution. The complainant further reiterates his arguments related to the likely monitoring of the activities of Geneva Call and the Justice and Equality Movement, and to the likely identification of his participation in such meetings. 5.10 In this connection, the complainant reiterates his reference to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in A.A. v. Switzerland, according to which those at risk of persecution include not only high-profile people but also those merely suspected of opposing the current regime and that is has been acknowledged that the Government of the Sudan monitors activities of political opponents abroad. The complainant concludes that the intensity and duration of his political activities make them relevant according to the ruling of the Court. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (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 present case, the State party acknowledges that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 6.3 The Committee notes that the State party does not challenge the admissibility of the complaint on any other grounds, and it therefore finds no obstacles to admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee declares the complaint admissible and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to the Sudan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation 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 or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to the Sudan. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (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 determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in 9