CAT/C/51/D/438/2010 complainants also reiterate that they travelled on fake passports and had to bribe officials in order to flee. Furthermore, they did not leave the country by air but by land, which involved crossing the Libyan border illegally, in a taxi. The fact that they were able to leave Tunisia does not mean that they are not wanted by the authorities. 5.4 The first complainant adds that his health is very poor. He reiterates that he suffers from depression and chronic hepatitis C and used to suffer from tuberculosis and notes that this was acknowledged by the Swiss authorities. A prolonged prison sentence would certainly put his life at a serious risk. It must be assumed that he would face inhuman and degrading treatment in such a case. He further challenges the State party’s argument that hepatitis C can be treated in Tunisia and notes that even if he is not imprisoned, there is a high risk that the required medical treatment would be unavailable or inaccessible there, given the current political uncertainty in the country. 5.5 The complainants argue that they have presented an “arguable case” and that the State party has failed to make sufficient efforts to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be in danger of being subjected to torture, if returned. They submit that such grounds remain valid. 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 Convention, that the same matter has not been and is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22, paragraph 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 instant case the State party has recognized that the complainants have exhausted all available domestic remedies. 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 the information made available to it by the parties concerned. 7.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the complainants to Tunisia would violate 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 be in danger of being subjected to torture. The Committee must evaluate whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainants would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon their return to Tunisia. In assessing this 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. 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 in the country to which he or she would return. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 1, according to which the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. While the 11