fears that paramilitary groups could capture and torture or murder him. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. In this respect the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the complaint should be declared inadmissible, since it has already been submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee notes here that the complaint was withdrawn before it was examined by that body. Consequently, the Committee considers that article 22, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convention is not an obstacle to examination of the complaint. 6.2The Committee also observes that the State party acknowledges that domestic remedies have been exhausted; consequently, it sees no further obstacles to the admissibility of the complaint. It therefore declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to consideration of the merits. 7.1The Committee has considered the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention. 7.2The Committee must decide whether the deportation of the complainant to Colombia constituted a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 7.3The Committee must assess whether there are grounds to believe that the author of the complaint would be in personal danger of being subjected to torture on returning to Colombia. In order to reach this conclusion, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations in accordance with article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The Committee recalls, however, that the aim is to determine whether the individual concerned would personally risk torture in the country to which he or she would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his 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 consistent pattern of gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person may not be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 7.4In the present case, the Committee notes the observations of the State party to the effect that the complainant did not produce evidence of having been involved in political activities in Colombia, and that he did not run a real and personal risk of being subjected to torture, since it had also received information from the Colombian authorities reporting that the complainant had been briefly detained, and notes that there is no evidence that he was tortured subsequent to his return to Colombia. The Committee further observes that his counsel reports that the complainant is currently on parole. 7.5The Committee moreover notes the circumstances which gave rise to doubts on the part of the State party’s authorities concerning the need to grant the complainant protection. It is aware that the complainant has not adduced sufficient evidence to prove that he was subjected to torture in Colombia.i Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Committee considers that the information provided by the complainant does not provide substantial grounds for believing that he was personally in danger of being tortured when returned to Colombia. 8.The Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7, of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, considers that the author of the complaint has not substantiated his claim that he would be subjected to torture upon his return to Colombia, and therefore concludes that the complainant’s removal to that country did not constitute a breach by the State party of article 3 of the Convention. Notes Communication No. 228/2003 Submitted by:T.M. (represented by counsel, Ms. Gunnel Stenberg) Alleged victim:T.M. State party: Sweden Date of complaint:6 March 2003 (initial submission) The Committee against Torture, established under article 17 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Meeting on 18 November 2003, Having concluded its consideration of complaint No. 228/2003, submitted to the Committee against Torture by Mr. T.M. under article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Having taken into account all information made available to it by the author of the complaint, his counsel and the State party, Adopts the following decision of the Committee under article 22 of the Convention.