CAT/C/33/D/223/2002 Page 9 raise only substantive issues which should be dealt with at the merits and not the admissibility stage. Since the Committee sees no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with the consideration of the merits. 6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Bangladesh 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 or she would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.3 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 return to Bangladesh. In assessing the risk the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3, paragraph 2, of the Convention, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in the return country. However, the Committee recalls its constant jurisprudence that the aim of such determination is to establish whether the individual concerned would be personally at risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would return. It follows that the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights on a country does not as such constitute a sufficient ground for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon his or her return to that country; additional grounds must exist to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. Similarly, 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. Furthermore, the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion but it does not have to meet the test of being highly probable. 6.4 The Committee has noted the medical reports certifying that the complainant suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as the doctors’ assessment that the scars in his body are consistent with the acts of torture described by the complainant. It also notes the State party’s doubts as to the identity of the perpetrators of such acts as well as the reports about the use of torture in Bangladesh and the frequent incidents of violence between supporters of different political parties. 6.5 Nevertheless, the complainant’s account of his experiences to the Swedish authorities contained contradictions and lacked clarity on issues that are relevant to assess his claim. The Swedish authorities made conclusions about the complainant’s credibility which, in the Committee’s view, were reasonable and by no reckoning arbitrary. 6.6 The Committee finds that the information submitted by the complainant, including the local and low level nature of his political activities in Bangladesh, does not contain evidence to support the claim that he will run a substantial risk of being subjected to torture if he returns to Bangladesh. 7. In the light of the above, the Committee against Torture, acting under article 22, paragraph 7 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, concludes that the decision of the State Party to