CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where 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. 8 The Committee also recalls that, generally speaking, it is for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.9 7.4 The Committee notes that the authors allege fear of torture or death at the hands of the Wahabbi militants, a group that is outlawed by the authorities of the Russian Federation. The State party’s authorities rejected their claim that Russian Federation authorities would be unwilling or unable to protect them from an attack by the militants. The State party pointed out that, according to his own statement, Mr. X has acted in the interests of the Government of the Russian Federation, having done his compulsory military service with the Russian Navy and having warned the Russian authorities of a potential imminent terrorist act. The Committee observes that the authors disagree with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, but the information before the Committee does not show that those findings are manifestly unreasonable. 7.5 The Committee observes that the authors’ refugee claims were thoroughly assessed by the State party’s authorities, which found that the authors’ declarations about the motive for seeking asylum and their account of the events that caused their fear of torture or killing were not credible. The Committee observes that the authors have not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process, or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the authors would face a real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant if they were removed to the Russian Federation. 7.6 In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee cannot conclude that the State party would violate articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant if it removed the authors to the Russian Federation. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a breach of any provision of the Covenant. 8 9 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4, and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. 11