United Nations Human Rights Website - Treaty Bodies Database - Document - Sessional/Annual Report of Committee - had been aware of the inconsistencies, it would not have issued a request for suspension of the author's expulsion. The State party invites the Committee, on the basis of the above, to examine whether the communication is admissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention, or alternatively, whether the communication contains the minimum substantiation necessary to render it compatible with article 22. Author's comments 6.1 By letter of 15 November 1995, a new counsel for the author informs the Committee that there has been a change of representative and that, for this reason, she is not in a position to make her comments on the State party's submission on time. 6.2 By letter of 21 November 1995, the author attempts to clarify some of the points raised by the State party. He states that after the incident in the Sudanese club where he was threatened, he was so upset that he does not remember exactly what happened and how many days he was absent from his home. He confirms that he is on the black list at the airport of Khartoum and that in Lebanon he is being threatened by Islamic activists supported by the Sudanese embassy. He states that he does not know the exact date of his brother's arrest, since he learned about it through friends who themselves were not very precise. 6.3 The Committee also received a letter, dated 19 November 1995, from the Sudanese National Democratic Alliance, certifying that the author was a member of their organization and generally supporting his claims. The Committee's decision on admissibility 7. During its fifteenth session, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. The Committee noted that the State party admitted that all domestic remedies had been exhausted, but it challenged the admissibility of the communication on the basis that it lacked the minimum substantiation that would render it compatible with article 22. The Committee, however, considered that the author had sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility, that his return to Sudan or Lebanon might raise an issue under article 3 of the Convention. The Committee found that the question of whether or not the author's expulsion would constitute a violation of article 3 should be examined on the merits. 8. Accordingly, on 22 November 1995, the Committee declared the communication admissible. State party's observations on the merits 9.1 By submission of 15 July 1996, the State party recalls that under article 3 of the Convention, it has to be determined whether an individual is personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he is to be returned. The State party emphasizes that, in line with the Committee's jurisprudence, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not a sufficient reason to conclude that a person would risk being subjected to torture upon his return to that country. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/de75e94f920bd0a0802565a600537744?Opendocument (69 of 109)16/10/2006 9:54:12 AM