CAT/C/45/D/373/2009 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1. Before considering a claim contained in a communication, the Committee 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, paragraph 5 (a, and b), that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that all available domestic remedied have been exhausted. 6.2 As to the complainants’ allegation that if returned to Turkey the first-named complainant would be killed by the PKK in retaliation for leaving the organization without permission, the Committee considers that the issue of whether the State party has an obligation to refrain from expelling a person who might risk pain or suffering inflicted by a non-governmental entity, without the consent or acquiescence of the Government, falls outside the scope of article 3 of the Convention.2 Thus, the Committee finds that this claim is inadmissible in accordance with rule 107 (c) of the Committee's rules of procedure. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s contention that the communication is manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible, as the complainants’ assertion that the first-named complainant is at risk of being treated by public officials in a manner that would amount to a breach of article 3 of the Convention fails to rise to the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility. However, the Committee considers that the complainants have provided sufficient information to permit it to consider the case on the merits. Consideration of merits 7.1 The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainants to Turkey would violate 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. 7.2 The Committee must decide, pursuant to paragraph 1 of article 3, whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey. In reaching this decision, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party's argument that certain improvements have been made to the human rights situation, including through a zero-tolerance policy and relevant legislative changes. It also notes the complainants’ argument that despite the changes, there remain reports of incidents of torture during police custody. 7.3. The aim of the present determination, however, is to establish whether the firstnamed complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in Turkey after his return. Even if a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights existed in Turkey, such existence would not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture after his return to that country; specific grounds must exist indicating that he would be personally at risk. 2 G.R.B v Sweden, 83/1997, Views adopted on 15 May 1998. 7