CAT/C/36/D/278/2005 Page 5 4.5 The State party observes that the author himself requested to be deported to Damascus by letter of 18 August 2005 sent to the Swiss migration office and later refused to take the flight to Damascus booked by the Swiss authorities. Complainant’s comments on State party’s observations 5.1 By letter of 12 January 2006, the author reiterates that JEM is a movement fighting for political change in the country, which has a national agenda directed against the present government of Sudan, and that arbitrary arrests and torture on the mere suspicion of membership or helping the rebels are common and carried out with total impunity. 5.2 The complainant stresses that he is not any member but a founding member of JEM and well-known throughout Sudan due to his activities. Therefore, he contends that it is almost certain that he is well known by Sudanese security forces and that he would be tortured if returned to Sudan. He notes that he was initially instructed by the rebel leadership to refrain from disclosing his close and special relationship with the movement and that, when he was finally told to declare his membership, the Swiss authorities refused to believe him. 5.3 The complainant recalls that Sudan is a country with appalling human rights records, with a pattern of gross, flagrant and massive human rights violations. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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. In the present case the Committee further notes that domestic remedies have been exhausted and that the State party does not contest admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee finds the complaint admissible and proceeds to consideration of the merits. 6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainant’s removal to Sudan would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to Sudan, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he 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 consistent