CAT/C/57/D/611/2014 6.2 The State party adds that there is little risk that the complainant would be interrogated upon his return, since it is up to him to arrange for his travel back to Kazakhstan. The complainant has not demonstrated that the Kazakh authorities are aware of his asylum application. Furthermore, the State party does not believe that the complainant would face any risk of torture based on his Russian ethnicity. As submitted previously, a large portion of the population in Kazakhstan is of Russian ethnicity. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim submitted 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. 7.2 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. It notes that, in the present case, the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits, as far as the complainant’s claim under article 3 of the Convention is concerned. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee must determine whether the expulsion of the complainant to Kazakhstan would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3 (1) of the Convention not to expel or return (“refouler”) 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. The Committee recalls that the existence in a country of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights is not in itself a sufficient ground for believing that an individual would be subjected to torture.24 Conversely, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that an individual might not be subjected to torture. 8.3 Recalling its general comment No. 1 (1997) on implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 (refoulement and communications), the Committee reaffirms 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, present, foreseeable and real. 8.4 The Committee takes note of the medical evidence presented by the complainant, according to which he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress syndrome and suffers from severe depression. The Committee notes that, according to the complainant, the State party’s authorities failed to take into consideration the supporting medical evidence that he presented while evaluating his asylum claims, even if the evidence in question was submitted at a later stage. 24 GE.16-09780 See communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, para. 15.3. 9