CAT/C/47/D/428/2010 risk of torture upon return to the Russian Federation was duly raised before the Supreme Court but it is not reflected in the decision. 14.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that the principle of exhaustion of domestic remedies requires petitioners to use remedies that are directly related to the risk of torture in the country to which they would be sent.16 The Committee notes that despite its request pursuant to rule 115, paragraph 9 (former rule 109) of its rules of procedure requesting that the State party give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim in the particular circumstances of the case and in accordance with the provisions of article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, the State party has not addressed this issue. In the absence of further information by the State party on the effectiveness of the appeal for abuse of power before the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court and other domestic remedies, the Committee finds that article 22, paragraph 5 (b), does not preclude it from declaring the communication admissible. 14.4 In the light of the above considerations, the Committee decides that the communication is admissible, as far as it raises issues under article 3 of the Convention, and decides to proceed with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 15.1 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, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 15.2 The Committee must determine whether the forced extradition of the complainant to the Russian Federation violates the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) an individual 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 stresses that it must take a decision on the question in the light of the information which the authorities of the State party had or should have had in their possession at the time of the extradition. Subsequent events are useful only for assessing the information that the State party actually had or should have had at the time of extradition. 15.3 In assessing whether the extradition of the complainant to the Russian Federation violated the State party’s obligations under article 3, of the Convention, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be extradited. The Committee reiterates 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. Similarly, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 15.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1996) on the implementation of article 3, that “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable”,17 but it must be personal and present. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has 16 17 Communication No. 170/2000, A.R. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 23 November 2001, para. 7.1. Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-third Session, Supplement No. 44 (A/53/44 and Corr.1), annex IX, para. 6. 13