CAT/C/62/D/688/2015 Additional comments by the complainant 6.1 On 1 November 2016, the complainant submitted an additional medical report dated 28 October 2016 along with an x-ray report. In the report it is stated that the tear of his adductor muscle cannot be fresh and must have existed for at least two years, and that the injury is unusual and consistent with the method of torture described by the complainant. He submits that this additional evidence further establishes the credibility of his account. 6.2 On 14 March 2017, the complainant submitted a further medical certificate in which it is stated that he is suffering from a significant sleep disorder, a lack of concentration and obsessive thinking because of his unresolved immigration status. He is being treated with a high dosage of medication for the diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder and severe depressive episodes. For the foregoing reasons, he requested processing of the present case. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims 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. 7.2 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 challenged the admissibility of the communication on this ground. Consequently, the Committee finds no obstacle to admissibility and declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 8.1 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. 8.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the forced removal of the complainant to Ethiopia 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 risk being subjected to torture. 8.3 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 his return to Ethiopia. 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 such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at a foreseeable and real risk 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. 7 8.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1 (1997) on the implementation of article 3 and reaffirms that the existence of a risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. Although the risk does not have to be shown to be highly probable, the Committee recalls that the burden of proof normally falls on the complainant, who must present an arguable case establishing that he or she is at foreseeable, 7 8 See, for example, E.K.W. v. Finland (CAT/C/54/D/490/2012), para. 9.3.