CAT/C/55/D/566/2013 upon the applicant, the Court must attempt to clarify ambiguities by posing additional questions. 6.3 Regarding the complainants’ contention that the migration authorities of the State party were obliged to further examine whether the complainants had been tortured, the State party submits that the responsibility lies with the complainants themselves to invoke evidence in order to substantiate the risk of being exposed to treatment contrary to article 3 of the Convention. Where such evidence is cited, it is for the State party to dispel any doubts about such evidence. The State party reiterates that there is reason to question the veracity of the complainants’ claims. The State party therefore submits that the migration authorities were not obliged to further examine whether the complainants had been tortured in the past. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering a claim contained 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 complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. Accordingly, the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility; it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its examination on the merits, as far as the complainants’ 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 concerned, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 8.2 The Committee must determine whether the deportation of the complainants to the Russian Federation 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 there. 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.11 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, 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.12 11 12 8 See communication No. 428/2010, Kalinichenko v. Morocco, decision adopted on 25 November 2011, para. 15.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 203/2002, A.R. v. Netherlands, decision adopted on 14 November