CAT/C/55/D/554/2013 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. 11.2 The Committee notes that the complainant does not provide any information concerning an alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Convention. The Committee therefore finds that his claims under these two articles are not sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility. 11.3 As to the complainant’s remaining claims under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party claims that the complainant has not appealed the refusal of the Immigration Police Service to consider his five asylum requests on the merits. It also notes the complainant’s allegations that such an appeal would not be effective as it would not suspend his extradition. It further notes that the complainant was extradited while the judicial proceedings on the appeal in his asylum case were ongoing. In the light of this, the Committee concludes that it is not precluded, for purposes of admissibility, by article 22 (5) (b) from examining the present case. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication submitted under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 12.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 12.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the extradition of the complainant to the Russian Federation violates the State party’s obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return 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. The Committee’s decision on this issue is taken in the light of the information that the authorities of the State party had or should have had in their possession at the time of the extradition. 12.3 In assessing whether the extradition of the complainant to the Russian Federation violates the State party’s obligations under article 3 of the Convention, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The Committee reiterates that the existence of such violations in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason 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.4 Similarly, 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. 12.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, that the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion; however, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable, but it must be personal and present. In that 4 8 See communications No. 426/2010, R.D. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 8 November 2013, para. 9.2; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010, para. 7.2; and No. 333/2007, Ismaev v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010, para. 7.3.