Algeria. The complainant’s comments on the State party’s observations 5.1 In his comments on the State party’s observations, dated 30 May 2003, the complainant challenges the Government’s interpretation of the Amnesty International report. He claims that the report, prepared by doctors and not psychologists, found there were no “immediate” signs of mental problems. The Amnesty International test was not directed at assessing his psychological state, but evaluating the physical markings on his body, and these were found to be consistent with the torture he had described. He states that the Review Board was wrong to conclude that the psychologist’s report did not contain any new material warranting a reopening of the case; this report is not only new evidence, but the only evidence in relation to his psychological state. He reiterates that the inconsistencies in his accounts are explained by the psychologist’s report. Issues before the Committee 6.1Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not 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 considered under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is not contested by the State party. The State party objects to admissibility on the grounds that the complainant has not established a prima facie case of a violation of article 3, but the Committee is of the view that the author has provided sufficient information in substantiation of his claim to consider his complaint on the merits. As the Committee sees no further obstacles to the admissibility of the communication, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds to a consideration of the merits. 6.2The Committee must determine whether the forced return of the complainant to Algeria would violate the State party’s obligations under article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention not to expel or return (refouler) an individual to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture. In reaching its conclusion, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, including the existence in the relevant State of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights. However, the aim is to establish whether the individual concerned would be at personal risk of torture in the country to which he or she would be returned. In accordance with the Committee’s jurisprudence, the existence of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violation of human rights in a country does not of itself constitute sufficient grounds for determining whether the person in question would be at risk of being subjected to torture upon return to that country. Nor does the absence of such a situation mean that a person cannot be considered at risk of being subjected to torture. 6.3The Committee recalls its general comment on article 3, which states that the Committee must assess whether there are “substantial grounds for believing that the author would be in danger of torture” if returned, and that the risk of torture “must be assessed on grounds that go beyond mere theory or suspicion”. The risk involved need not be “highly probable”, but it must be “personal and present”. In this regard, in previous decisions, the Committee has consistently determined that the risk of torture must be “foreseeable, real and personal”. 6.4In assessing the risk of torture in the present case, the Committee notes that the complainant claims to have been tortured and imprisoned previously by the Algerian authorities. The findings of the medical examination carried out on him are consistent with these claims, although they do not discount other possible causes for the complainant’s injuries. In relation to the psychologist’s report, the Committee notes that the complainant was found to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and that this was said to be consistent with his claim of having been subjected to torture in the past. The report also found that past torture could account for the discrepancies in the complainant’s story. The Committee notes the complainant’s submission that this report constitutes the only formal psychological evidence about his mental condition. It also notes that this report was considered by the Danish authorities in connection with the complainant’s application to have his case reopened, and was found not to contain new information. 6.5The relevant evidence in the case was fully considered by the Danish authorities. And, consistent with the Committee’s case law, due weight must be accorded to findings of fact made by government authorities. In the present case, the complainant’s account of his experiences to the Danish authorities contained numerous discrepancies. The Danish authorities made conclusions about the complainant’s credibility which, in the Committee’s view, were reasonable and by no reckoning arbitrary. In this regard, the Committee notes paragraph 8 of its general comment No. 1, pursuant to which questions about the credibility of a complainant, and the presence of relevant factual inconsistencies in his claim, are pertinent to the Committee’s deliberations as to whether the complainant would be in danger of being tortured upon return. 6.6The complainant’s initial submission and his subsequent explanations of his inconsistencies noted by the State party in its submission do not permit the Committee to make any informed decision on the likelihood of him being subjected to torture on his return to Algeria. In light of the foregoing, the Committee finds that the complainant has not established that he would face a foreseeable, real and personal risk of being tortured, within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention. 7.1The 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 removal of the complainant to Algeria would not constitute a breach of article 3 of the Convention. Notes Communication No. 210/2002* Submitted by:V.R.