CAT/C/64/D/680/2015 claim, that he suffered two injuries that were inflicted in two different incidents, demonstrates another inconsistency in the complainant’s account of events, as he did not previously make claims about two incidents. The State party submits that the complainant’s statutory declaration, in which he describes how he was allegedly injured by the Taliban with a bayonet in May 2008, is not sufficient to substantiate his claim that he is at risk of torture upon return to Pakistan. The State party further reiterates its previous submissions on admissibility and the merits in regard to the complainant’s health. It notes that the claims made and pieces of evidence provided by the complainant in respect of his health have been contradictory, relate to injuries allegedly sustained more than nine years ago and do not substantiate the complainant’s claim that he is at a personal risk of torture upon return to Pakistan. 13.2 With regard to the documents provided by the complainant attesting to his membership of the Awami National Party, the State party notes that the letter from the Chair of the District Development Advisory Committee is signed by Rahmat Ali Khan. The State party submits that an online search shows that a person with a similar name, Rehmat Ali, was appointed Chair of the District Development Advisory Committee for the Swat District in 2010. However, the letter provided by the complainant was written in 2015, and it appears that the current Chair for the Swat District, Fazal Hakeem, has been in the position since 2014. The State party submits that this indicates that the letter may not be genuine. 13.3 The State party further notes that, if it were to accept that the complainant was a member of the Awami National Party, the complainant has failed to substantiate that he would be at a personal risk of torture for this reason upon return to Pakistan. There are reports of district-level and provincial politicians and leaders from the Awami National Party having been killed in Pakistan. However, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade assesses that Party members face a low risk of violence from political or militant groups based on their political affiliations. As such, given that the complainant was not a politician within the Awami National Party, there is no evidence to suggest that he would be at risk of torture on the basis of any alleged past membership. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 14.1 Before considering any complaint submitted in a communication, 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 (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. 14.2 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 not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 14.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the communication is inadmissible as the complainant’s claims are manifestly ill-founded. The Committee, however, considers that the communication has been adequately substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 15.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 15.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Pakistan 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 9