CAT/C/50/D/431/2010 generally insufficient, in the absence of additional factors, to amount to degrading treatment and thus prevent the deportation, are not relevant to her case. She does not contest that, in principle, adequate medical treatment is available in Turkey. The real problem is, however, that a return into the sphere of surveillance and intimidation by the State authorities which were the very cause of the mental health problems would fundamentally prevent adequate treatment in Turkey. 5.10 The complainant rejects the State party’s conclusion that no serious reasons exist to believe that she would face a real and personal risk of torture if returned to Turkey. She considers that there are multiple elements establishing such a risk both with respect to her personally and individually and with respect to the human rights situation in Turkey generally. The complainant refers to the documentation submitted in support of the existence of a real risk of torture upon return, and notes that the State party has not commented on some of these documents, for example (a) the letter dated 1 April 2010 in which her lawyer confirmed the severe persecution experienced by her until her escape from Turkey and that her life and safety would be in danger if she were to be returned; (b) the letter from TOHAV centre confirming that she received treatment from 2002 to 2006; and (c) the various reports by international organizations on the human rights situation in Turkey. She reiterates her allegations that her deportation to Turkey would constitute a violation of article 3 of the Convention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering a claim contained in a complaint, 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 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the present complaint on any grounds. The Committee considers that the complainant’s allegation under article 3 has been sufficiently substantiated, declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits . 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 Turkey would constitute a violation by the State party of its 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 complainant would be personally in danger of being subjected to torture upon return to Turkey. 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. 13