CCPR/C/121/D/2770/2016 irregularities in the decision-making process. 28 The State party also notes that in his communication to the Committee, the author has failed to provide new, specific details about his situation. This reflects that he merely disagrees with domestic decisions and that he is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 14 February 2017, the author submitted his comments on the State party’s observations. Regarding the observations on the admissibility of the communication, with respect to article 7 of the Covenant, he submits that according to rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the author does not need to prove his case but to provide sufficient evidence in substantiation of his allegations; in other words, to constitute a prima facie case. He considers that he has done so, as he has provided evidence of his real age and of the risk of ill-treatment if forcibly returned to Greece. Regarding the evidence provided of his real age, the author refers to his family book, which has been substantiated by statements from his network family in Denmark as well as by the team coordinator and social worker from the asylum centre in Denmark. 5.2 Regarding his allegations under article 24 of the Covenant, the author claims that they are admissible as the failure of the Danish authorities to make an assessment of his best interests as a child amounts to a violation of that provision, whether or not it applies extraterritorially. In this regard, the author also claims that the inhuman and/or degrading treatment he might suffer if deported to Greece is not decisive. In addition, the author recalls that article 2 of the Covenant contains an obligation not to remove a person to a State where there is a risk of irreparable harm,29 and claims that irreparable harm may arise under provisions of the Covenant other than articles 6 and 7. In this regard, the author refers to the case of D.T. v. Canada, in which the Committee held that a deportation by Canada to Nigeria of a child was a violation of his rights under article 24 (1) of the Covenant. 30 He also quotes A and B v. Denmark, in which the Committee considered that article 18 could not be dissociated from the author’s allegations under articles 6 and 7.31 Furthermore, the author refers to general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, in which the Committee stated that returning an individual to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual faces a real risk of a severe violation of liberty or security of person, such as prolonged arbitrary detention, may amount to inhuman treatment prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant (para. 57). 5.3 With respect to the merits of the communication, the author reiterates that there are substantial grounds to believe that there is a real risk of ill-treatment if he were to be returned to Greece, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author refers to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which mirrors article 7 of the Covenant. He indicates that according to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, in the assessment made by the Court to determine the minimum level of severity amounting to illtreatment, circumstances such as the age and state of health of the applicant need to be taken into account. 32 The author therefore argues that when interpreting article 7 in conjunction with article 24 of the Covenant, which stipulates that children must be the subject of measures of protection, the minimum level of severity must be assessed taking into account the special circumstances of the applicant who, in this case, is a Syrian minor who has already endured hardship in his home country and in Greece, who has also developed self-destructive behaviour and who has no caregiver in Greece. The author thus concludes that there is a real risk of ill-treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant if he were to be returned to Greece. The author further emphasizes that according to the background information on the situation of refugees in Greece, refugees do not receive 28 29 30 31 32 8 The State party refers to communications No. 2186/2012, Mr. X and Ms. X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014, para. 7.5; and No. 2329/2014, Z v. Denmark, Views adopted on 15 July 2015, para. 7.4. The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communication No. 2081/2011, Views adopted on 15 Jul 2016, para. 8. The author also refers to an individual opinion by Sarah Cleveland and Sir Nigel Rodley regarding A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 7 July 2016, annex II, para. 6. See communication No. 2291/2013, Views adopted on 13 July 2016, para. 7.4. See Tarakhel v. Switzerland (application No. 29217/12), judgment of 4 November 2014, para. 118.