CAT/C/79/D/1055/2021 immediately as representing malingering or false allegations may introduce errors in an evaluation, which might have serious consequences for the person being evaluated. The complainant states that, for a number of personal or political reasons, a person may falsely allege torture or exaggerate the seriousness of an incident, and that it is up to the person responsible for the evaluation to be aware of this possibility at all times while trying to identify the potential reasons why the person might be acting in this way. The complainant also maintains that certain statements that may appear to be inconsistent can be explained by the abuse to which he was subjected. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 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. 6.2 The Committee recalls that, in accordance with article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention, it will not consider any communication from an individual unless it has ascertained that the individual has exhausted all available domestic remedies. The Committee notes that, as the complainant’s appeal was rejected, the rejection of his application for asylum became final and that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the complaint. The Committee therefore finds that it is not precluded by article 22 (5) (b) of the Convention from considering the communication. 6.3 As the Committee finds no further obstacles to admissibility, it declares the complaint admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 In accordance with article 22 (4) of the Convention, the Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties. 7.2 In the present case, the issue before the Committee is whether the return of the complainant to Cameroon 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 or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. 7.3 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 Cameroon. 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. 22 However, the Committee recalls that the aim of this 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 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 to conclude 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.23 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 4 (2017), which states, first, that the non-refoulement obligation exists whenever there are “substantial grounds” for believing that the person concerned would be in danger of being subjected to torture in the State to which 22 23 8 Committee against Torture, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 43. Kalinichenko v. Morocco (CAT/C/47/D/428/2010), para. 15.3. GE.24-09258