CAT/C/47/D/365/2008 6.17 As regards the admissibility of the complaint, the State party submits that it is not aware of the present matter having been or being subject to any other international investigation or settlement. With regard to the exhaustion of all domestic remedies, as required under article 22, paragraph 5 (b), of the Convention, it maintains its position that the complainants have not exhausted all available domestic remedies, and therefore the complaint is inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Irrespective of the Committee’s examination relating to article 22, paragraph 5 (a) and (b), of the Convention, the State party maintains that the complainants’ assertion that they are at risk of being treated in a manner that would amount to a breach of the Convention fails to attain the basic level of substantiation required for purposes of admissibility, and therefore the complaint is manifestly unfounded and inadmissible under article 22, paragraph 2, of the Convention.1 6.18 With regard to the merits, should the Committee consider the complaint admissible, the issue before it is whether the forced return of the complainants to Afghanistan would violate the obligation of Sweden under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return 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. It recalls that, when determining whether the forced return of a person to another country would constitute a violation of article 3, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in that country. However, as the Committee has repeatedly emphasized, the aim of the determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country. For a violation of article 3 to be established, additional grounds must exist, showing that the individual concerned would be personally at risk.2 6.19 With regard to the human rights situation in Afghanistan,3 the State party submits that the country’s human rights record remains poor due to insurgency, weak governmental and traditional institutions, corruption, drug trafficking, and the country’s long-term conflict. The human rights violations include torture and unlawful killings by the Government and its agents and the Taliban and other insurgent groups.4 During the 2008 and 2009 the situation has worsened, and 2008 was the most violent year since 2001. The conflict has spread from southern, south-eastern and eastern regions to areas that had been relatively stable in the recent past, including Kabul’s surrounding central provinces as well as part of the northern and western regions.5 However, the situation in Kabul is better than in other parts. In Kabul, police authorities are generally willing to enforce the law, although 1 2 3 4 5 The State party refers to communication No. 216/2002, H.I.A. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 2 May 2003, para. 6.2. Communications No. 150/1999, S.L. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 11 May 2001, para. 6.3; and No. 213/2002, E.J.V.M. v. Sweden, decision adopted on 14 November 2003, para. 8.3. The State party makes reference to the Report on Human Rights issued by the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs; the United States Department of State, “2008 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan”, 2008 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices (25 February 2009); the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Home Office, “Country of origin information report on Afghanistan” (26 June 2009); the United Kingdom, Home Office, “Operational guidance note on Afghanistan” (8 April 2009); the Amnesty International Annual Report; the Human Rights Watch World Report; and the UNHCR Eligibility Guidelines for Assessing the International Protection Needs of AsylumSeekers from Afghanistan (July 2009). United Kingdom, Home Office Operational Guidance Note, para. 2.11. UNCHR Eligibility Guidelines, p. 42. 9