CAT/C/78/D/1052/2021 Advance unedited version doubts about the general veracity of her claim, especially since it has been demonstrated that she suffers from PTSD. 7.4 The complainant repeats that the credibility assessment has not been made in a proper way by the State party since it did not appropriately consider her status as a victim of torture when assessing her account and her future risk. She states that the burden of proof shifts from the applicant to the State when the applicant has already suffered serious harm or torture prior to his or her flight.9 The complainant reiterates that she has a real risk of being subjected again to torture if she were to be returned to the DRC and adds that as a young female lawyer and human rights activist, she falls into a category of people who are targeted in the country. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any complaint submitted 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 (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. 8.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it should not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. It notes that, in the present case, the State party has not contested that the complainant has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded from considering the communication under article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention. 8.3 The State party submits that the communication is inadmissible as it is manifestly illfounded. The Committee considers, however, that the arguments put forward by the complainant raise substantive issues, which should be dealt with on the merits. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the forcible removal of the complainant to the DRC would constitute a violation of 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. 9.3 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 the DRC. In assessing that risk, the Committee must take into account all relevant considerations, pursuant to article 3 (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 foreseeable and real risk of being subjected to torture in the country to which he or she 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 9 12 The complainant refers to: EU Qualification Directive 2004/83/EC, 29 April 2004, article 4 (4).; European Court of Human Rights, R.C. v. Sweden (application No. 41827/07), judgment of 9 March 2010.