CCPR/C/122/D/2642/2015 7.6 The Committee further notes the author’s allegation that he would be subjected to torture or ill-treatment if returned to Bangladesh, as he would be persecuted for being a member of the Jamaat-e-Islami, and that the authorities are very harsh with the members of that organization. The Committee considers that the facts as presented by the author raise issues in relation to article 7 of the Covenant, and therefore concludes that, for the purpose of admissibility, he has adequately explained the reasons for which he fears that his forcible removal to Bangladesh would result in a risk of treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee therefore declares admissible this part of the communication, and proceeds to its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in 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 28 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.29 8.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and 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.30 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the State party failed to take into account that, if he were to be deported, he would face a risk of being subjected to torture or ill-treatment for being a member of the Jamaat-e-Islami who has conducted several tasks for the party, including planning, preparing and leading demonstrations, working to earn money for the party, collecting donations and fighting in demonstrations in case of tensions. The Committee also notes the author’s claim that he has been falsely charged of crimes committed by the Jamaat-e-Islami and that, if returned to his country, he would be arrested and tortured, taking into account that domestic authorities are very harsh with members of the Jamaat-e-Islami and that torture of detainees is widespread in Bangladesh. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the Refugee Appeals Board made a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence submitted by the author and considered that he was not credible, as he gave inconsistent statements in relation to the time of his membership of the Jamaat-e-Islami, his activities for the party, the dates of his attendance at the Qur’an school, the periods when he was employed, his conflicts with the Jamaat-e-Islami and the dates of those conflicts, the charges against him, the surrender to his cousin of the court documents relating to such charges, the name of his attorney, the newspaper articles on the charges against him, and the time of his departure from his country. 8.5 The Committee further takes note of the State party’s argument that the author has failed to establish that he is more than a sympathizer of the Jamaat-e-Islami and that, accordingly, he is not a high-profile individual in the eyes of the authorities or any political parties. The Committee also notes the State party’s statement that the court documents submitted by the author during the asylum proceedings, which indicated that he was 28 29 30 See, inter alia, Y. v. Canada (CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013), para. 7.2; and P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.2. See Y v. Canada (CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013), para. 7.2; and X. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. See, inter alia, Y. v. Canada (CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013), para. 7.5; and Rasappu v. Canada (CCPR/C/115/D/2258/2013), para. 7.3. 11