CAT/C/49/D/464/2011 6.4 The fact that the Refugee Appeals Board did not expressly refer to the Convention cannot be considered to reflect a failure to include its obligations in its decisions. 6.5 In reviewing an asylum application, the Refugee Appeals Board takes into account all factual and background information available at the time of its decision. 6.6 The State party argues that the number of broken ribs caused by the Taliban’s violence would not affect the specific assessment of the assault allegedly suffered by the applicant in terms of asylum law. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a complaint, 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, 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. 7.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 5 (b) of the Convention, it shall not consider any complaint 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 recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 7.3 The State party submits that the complaint is inadmissible as manifestly unfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Since both the State party and the complainant have provided observations on the merits of the communication, the Committee proceeds immediately with the consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present complaint in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainant to Afghanistan 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. 8.3 With regard to the complainant’s claims that most likely he would be imprisoned upon return and subjected to torture, the Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to his country of origin. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 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 11