CAT/C/57/D/628/2014 that the complainant had failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his complaint under article 3 of Convention and that the complaint was therefore manifestly ill-founded and should be considered inadmissible. In the alternative, the State party maintained that it has not been established that there were substantial grounds for believing that the author’s return to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. The State party further referred to the case law of the Danish immigration authorities, which demonstrated, inter alia, the high recognition rates for asylum claims between 2013 and 2015. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 6.2 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. The Committee notes that, in the instant case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on this ground. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the complaint should be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. The Committee, however, considers that the communication has been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility, as the allegations of a risk of torture or ill-treatment in the event of the complainant’s forced removal to Sri Lanka raise issues under article 3 of the Convention. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the present complaint admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 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. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Sri Lanka would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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. 7.3 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 Sri Lanka. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (2) of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights 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. Conversely, the absence of a 10