CAT/C/71/D/807/2017 State party’s additional observations 7. On 5 May 2021, the State party indicated that it had no further observations. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint contained in a communication, the Committee must decide whether 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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it cannot consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. This rule does not apply where it has been established that the application of the remedies has been unreasonably prolonged, or that it is unlikely, after a fair trial, to bring effective relief to the alleged victim. 12 It notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies or any other criteria for the admissibility of the complaint. 8.3 In the absence of any question as to the admissibility of the complaint, the Committee declares it admissible, given that it raises questions under article 3 of the Convention and that the facts and basis of the complainants’ claims have been duly substantiated,13 and proceeds with the consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 In the present case, the Committee must determine whether, by returning the complainants to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the State party would be in breach of its obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return an individual to another State where there are grounds to believe that he or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 9.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In assessing this risk, the Committee must, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, take into account all relevant considerations, including the possible existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. 14 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of this assessment is to establish whether the individual concerned would personally be at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she is to be expelled. 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 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. Conversely, 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. Moreover, the Committee notes that, since the Islamic Republic of Iran is not a party to the Convention, in 12 13 14 8 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 34. K.A. et al. v. Sweden (CAT/C/39/D/308/2006), para. 7.2. Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4, para. 43. GE.21-12363