CAT/C/39/D/299/2006 Page 7 6.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the complainant’s removal to the Democratic Republic of the Congo would constitute a violation of the State party’s obligation, under article 3 of the Convention, not to expel or return a person to a State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. 6.3 In assessing whether there are substantial grounds for believing that the complainant would be in danger of being subjected to torture if returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Committee must take account of all relevant considerations, including the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim of such an analysis is to determine whether the complainant runs a personal risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he would be returned. It follows that the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country does not as such constitute sufficient reason for determining that a particular person would be in danger 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. 6.4 The Committee recalls its general comment on the implementation of article 3, that “the risk of torture must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion. However, the risk does not have to meet the test of being highly probable” (A/53/44, annex IX, para. 6). 6.5 In the present case, the complainant contends that a personal and present risk of torture in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is justified by his past activities as a journalist and as a militant of an opposition party, as a result of which he claims to have been detained on several occasions and ill-treated, and by the fact that he is allegedly searched in this country since his escape from the Gombé prison in 2004. The Committee notes that the State party has questioned the complainant's credibility. At the same time, the Committee notes the complainant’s argument that national authorities never examined his request in substance but rejected it on procedural grounds. The Committee takes note of the entry into force of the Swiss Federal Act on 31 December 2005 amending the 1998 Asylum Act, article 38 of which established the 48-deadline requirement for immigration authorities to consider the merits of an asylum request. The State party contends that, since that date, national authorities have thoroughly examined the complainant’s request in substance. However, the Committee observes that both the ODR and the CRA rejected the complainant’s request on the basis of his failure to submit identity documents within the initial deadline and that his two requests to reopen the procedures were rejected by the CRA also on procedural grounds. All these decisions were adopted prior to the entry into force of the new Federal Act except for the last CRA decision of 4 January 2006, which rejected the complainant’s application on the basis of his failure to pay judicial fees. Therefore, the Committee considers that his case was never examined on the merits by national authorities. 6.6 The State party has further questioned the authenticity of the evidence submitted by the complainant. At the same time, the complainant argues that national authorities did not thoroughly examine the evidence submitted by him or corroborate his