CAT/C/34/D/220/2002 Page 10 the Convention that the same matter has not been, and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.2 Concerning the claim under article 16 relating to the complainant’s expulsion in light of his mental health, the Committee recalls its prior jurisprudence that the aggravation of the condition of an individual’s physical or mental health by virtue of a deportation is generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment in violation of article 16. 8 The Committee notes the medical evidence presented by the complainant demonstrating that he suffers from severe post-traumatic stress syndrome, most probably as the consequences of the torture suffered by him in 1997. The Committee considers, however, that the aggravation of the complainant’s state of health which might be caused by his deportation is in itself insufficient to substantiate this claim, which is accordingly considered inadmissible.9 7.3 As to the claim under article 3 concerning torture, the Committee considers, particularly in light of the complainant’s account of his previous torture, that he has substantiated this claim, for purposes of admissibility. In the absence of any further obstacles to the admissibility of this claim, the Committee accordingly proceeds with its consideration on the merits. Consideration on the merits 8.1 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Bangladesh would violate the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or to return 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. 8.2 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 Bangladesh. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim, however, 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 cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.3 The Committee observes that the State party has not contested the complainant’s claim that he was tortured and notes that the Aliens Appeal Board was of the view that the complainant’s political opponents may have been responsible for this torture. However, the Committee notes that seven years have passed since the torture took 8 Case No. 83/1997, Decision adopted on 15 May 1998, Case No. 49/1996, Decision on 15 May 2001, and Case No. 228/2003, Decision adopted on 18 November 2003.