CCPR/C/116/D/2357/2014 seize his family’s property. The Committee further notes the author’s arguments concerning alleged procedural flaws in the asylum system in Denmark. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author lacks credibility and that his claims under articles 6, 7 and 13 of the Covenant are manifestly ill-founded and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in paragraph 12 of which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 7 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 8 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 9 7.5 The Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board found, after examining the author’s written and oral testimony, that he was not credible concerning the risk of harm he alleges to face from Q’s relatives in Afghanistan. The Committee also notes that the author’s fears of being killed or subjected to torture relate to the acts of private individuals, and he has not alleged that he contacted the Afghan authorities in order to seek protection from Q’s relatives, and has not explained why he did not do so or would not be able to do so in the future. The Committee also observes that the author has not provided information on the documentation that he submitted with his request to reopen asylum proceedings and that was deemed to be not credible. The Committee considers that while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, the information before the Committee does not indicate that those findings are manifestly unreasonable. 10 Moreover, the author’s claims regarding the independence of the Board and the procedural integrity of asylum proceedings in Denmark are of a general nature and do not establish that the evaluation of his asylum application by the Danish authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.11 Accordingly, the author’s claims under articles 6, 7 and 13 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated and are therefore inadmissible.12 7.6 The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under article 14 is inadmissible ratione materiae because that provision does not apply to asylum proceedings. The Committee refers to its jurisprudence that proceedings relating to the expulsion of aliens do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and obligations in a suit at law” within the meaning of article 14 (1) but are governed by 7 8 9 10 11 12 See, inter alia, communications No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.3; and No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2. See, inter alia, communications No. 2474/2014, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 7.3; and No. 2366/2014, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.4. See communication No. 2351/2014, R.G. et al. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 7.7. Ibid., para. 7.6. See, inter alia, communications No. 2351/2014, R.G. et al. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 7.8; and No. 2426/2014, N v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 6.6. 7