CAT/C/64/D/693/2015 the court to indicate that the complainant could not remain in detention, nor was his health condition seen as a bar to his return to Afghanistan. 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 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 has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 7.3 The Committee notes the complainant’s claim that the State party violated article 16 of the Convention by detaining him for 5 months and 28 days prior to his return to Afghanistan. It observes that the High Court of Eastern Denmark took into account the results of the medical examination made by Amnesty International when rejecting the complainant’s appeal. Furthermore, the State party submitted that no information had been provided to indicate that the complainant could not remain in detention, nor was his health condition seen as a bar to his return to Afghanistan. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any further information or explanation on file, the Committee considers that the deprivation of liberty in itself is insufficient to substantiate the author’s claim of a violation of article 16 of the Convention. Accordingly, the Committee finds that this part of the communication is not sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility. 7.4 The Committee also notes that the State party maintains that the complaint should be declared inadmissible pursuant to rule 113, subparagraph (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 a violation of article 3 of the Convention. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the claims 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. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Afghanistan would constitute a violation of 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. 8.3 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 Afghanistan. In assessing that 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 the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture on return to that country; additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Conversely, the absence of a 9