CAT/C/34/D/221/2002 Page 15 the parties to the proceedings should submit arguments and evidence within set deadlines, it considers that new evidence of critical importance to the Committee’s assessment of the complaint may be submitted as soon as it is made available to either party. 7.5 The Committee notes that this new documentation was submitted 3 months after it was made available to the complainant. However, it finds that in the circumstances of the present case, where the State party rejected the complainant’s request for a medical examination, and where the medical certificates are inconclusive on the issue of the complainant’s experience of torture, a new medical certificate must be admitted for the evaluation of the complaint by the Commitee. The new documentation was transmitted to the State party for comments, to ensure equality of arms, and the State party has commented on it. The Committee therefore finds that it should consider the new medical documentation made available to it. In the same context, it also admits as evidence the declaration by the Vice Chairman of the Jatiyo Party Central Committee. 7.6 The Committee accordingly declares the claim under article 3 admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits: 8.1 The Committee must decide whether the forced return of the complainant to Bangladesh would violate the State party's obligation, under article 3, paragraph 1 of the Convention, not to expel or return an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. It follows that, in conformity with the Committee's jurisprudence, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient ground for determining whether the particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his 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 gross violations of human rights does not mean that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 8.2 The Committee takes note of the complainant’s information about the general human rights situation in Bangladesh, in particular recurrent incidents of police