CAT/C/71/D/896/2018 6.2 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 the complainant appealed the negative decision concerning his asylum application to the District Court of The Hague on 7 April 2011 and that he sought leave to appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State, which was rejected on 19 May 2011. The complainant’s appeal against the negative decision concerning his second asylum application was rejected by the District Court on 19 August 2014. The negative decision concerning his third asylum application was appealed to the District Court and he sought leave to appeal to the Administrative Jurisdiction Division, but those applications was rejected on 18 December 2015 and 5 February 2016, respectively. The complainant’s fourth asylum application was rejected on 7 June 2017, however, the District Court declared the complainant’s request for judicial review well founded. That decision was challenged by the Minister for Migration and, by judgment of 7 November 2017, the Administrative Jurisdiction Division declared the complainant’s request for judicial review unfounded. The Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the complaint on those grounds. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) from examining the present communication. 6.3 The Committee considers that the complainant has sufficiently substantiated his allegations of a risk of torture or other ill-treatment by the Sri Lankan authorities for his perceived affiliation with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee notes that the State party has not challenged the admissibility of the communication on any grounds. Given that the Committee finds no obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complainant’s claims under article 3 of the Convention admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Sri Lanka 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. 7.3 The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to Sri Lanka. In assessing that 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 the 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 the individual 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 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 not mean that a person might not be subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 11 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22, according to which the Committee will assess “substantial grounds” and consider the risk of torture as foreseeable, personal, present and real when the existence of credible facts relating to the risk by itself, at the time of its decision, would affect the rights of the complainant under the Convention in case of his or her 11 See, e.g. E.T. v. the Netherlands (CAT/C/65/D/801/2017), para. 7.3; and Y.G. v. Switzerland (CAT/C/65/D/822/2017), para. 7.3. 7