CAT/C/54/D/490/2012 Democratic Republic of the Congo. The complainant also informed the Committee that she had given birth to her second child on 3 October 2013. Additional submission from the State party 7. On 20 January 2015, the State party informed the Committee that despite the new medical certificates submitted to the Committee by the complainant, which were not submitted to the State party authorities, the facts presented by the complainant to the Committee did not reveal a breach of article 3 of the Convention should she be deported to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The State party maintained that the complainant’s asylum request had been fairly and thoroughly examined by the national authorities, and it had not been established that she would face a serious risk of torture or ill-treatment upon return. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, the Committee against Torture 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. 8.2 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 present case, the State party has recognized that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 9.1 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. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the expulsion of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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. 9.3 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 the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In assessing this 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 return. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not of itself 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 pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does 8