CAT/C/64/D/738/2016 the intelligence services of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The photographs of the complainant, the videos on YouTube, the letters of confirmation provided by APARECO and the complainant’s membership card are all evidence of the action he has taken against the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 5.4 According to the complainant, it is unlikely that the intelligence services would show no interest in him if he were to return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo because he has received threats in Switzerland that must have been sent by the Congolese authorities. He also emphasizes that the newspaper articles submitted as evidence prove that his wife suffered persecution in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a result of his political activities in Switzerland. For that reason, she left the country to seek protection in Switzerland. An examination of the merits of her asylum application has not yet been conducted by the State party because her case is covered by the Dublin III Regulation. On that basis, the complainant states that, owing to the activities in which he has been involved with a certain intensity on a permanent and regular basis since 2010, he would run a significant personal risk if he were to return to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In addition, the conditions set forth in paragraph 8 of the Committee’s general comment No. 1 have been fulfilled and the evidence provided by the complainant is credible and consistent. 5.5 The complainant recalls that, under Swiss law, post-flight grounds for seeking asylum are defined as events and circumstances that arise after the applicant’s departure from the country of origin. The threat of persecution in the country of origin for reasons that are unrelated to the cause of departure leads to recognition as a refugee, provided that the other legal requirements are met (persecution on grounds specified in law), but not to the granting of asylum. The complainant maintains that his political activities constitute post-flight grounds for seeking asylum. 5.6 On 17 November 2017, the complainant submitted, as evidence, undated photographs showing his participation in recent demonstrations against the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in front of the Palais des Nations in Geneva. He points out that those photographs were posted on social networks and were no doubt brought to the attention of the Congolese authorities by their services. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before 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. 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 may not consider any communications from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case, the State party does not contest the exhaustion of all available domestic remedies by the complainant or the admissibility of the complaint. 6.3 The Committee considers that the complaint raises substantive issues under article 3 of the Convention and that those issues should be examined on the merits. The Committee sees no obstacle to the admissibility of the present communication and thus declares it admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has examined the complaint in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 7.2 With regard to the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture, should he be returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee recalls, first and foremost, that the GE.18-16592 7