CAT/C/54/D/440/2010 4.9 For all these reasons, the State party challenges the substance of the complainant’s communication and his allegation that he is in danger of being tortured if he is returned to Guinea. Complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 On 2 August 2012, the complainant considered that his fears of being subjected to torture and ill-treatment had been adequately demonstrated by the evidence that he had presented throughout the domestic proceedings and to the Committee. In addition to the documents he provided, such as the letter from his aunt, the summonses and the wanted-persons notice, the complainant draws attention to the situation in Guinea in terms of the human rights violations that have occurred since the presidential elections in 2010. He notes that the Fulani are subjected to persecution as an ethnic minority. According to the complainant, incidents targeting UFDG opponents and people of Fulani ethnicity are known and documented. 5.2 The complainant stresses that the documents he provided were not forged and that they attest to the risk of torture he would face if he is returned to Guinea. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained 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, paragraph 5 (a), of the Convent ion, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the communication. As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the communication admissible. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22, paragraph 4, of the Convention, the Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainant to Guinea would violate the State party’s obligation under article 3 of the Convention not to expel or to 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. 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 Guinea. In assessing this risk, the Committee must take account of 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. However, the Committee recalls that the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the individual concerned would be personally exposed to a real and foreseeable 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 in a country does not as such constitute sufficient grounds for determining that a particular person would be in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to that country. Additional grounds must be adduced to show that the individual concerned would be personally at risk. By the same token, the absence of a consistent pattern of flagrant violations of human rights does not mean that a person is not at risk of being subjected to torture in his or her specific circumstances. 6/7 GE. 15-10885