CAT/C/44/D/302/2006 ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 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. 12.2 The Committee has taken note of the State party’s argument that the submission of the request by the complainant to the Committee is an abuse of the right of submission. It considers, in any event, that since the submission of the present communication to the Committee, on 25 September 2006, it is for the latter to evaluate the good faith of the complainant in his presentation of facts and evidence, and their relevance, for the Committee, in addressing the arguments of the State party on the inadmissibility of the communication. However, in the present case, the Committee considers that the communication as a whole is sufficiently substantiated, for purposes of admissibility. 12.3 As to the State party’s objection that the complainant has submitted to the Committee new elements, that were never drawn to the authorities’ attention, the Committee notes that the information in question was received to no fault of himself by the complainant after the exhaustion of domestic remedies in the State party. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that it is not prevented by article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention and rule 107 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, to examine the communication on the merits.. Consideration of the merits 13.1 The Committee must decide whether removal of the complainant to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or return a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 13.2 To assess the risk of torture, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the State to which the complainant would be returned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. The aim, however, is to determine whether the individual concerned would personally be in danger of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds 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 imply that a person cannot be considered to be in danger of being subjected to torture in his particular circumstances. 13.3 The Committee recalls its General Comment No.1 on article 3 1 , which states that the Committee is obliged to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture were he/she to be expelled, returned or extradited, the 1 A/53/44, Annex XI CAT General Comment No 1. 9