CCPR/C/112/D/2186/2012 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, paragraph 1, but are governed by article 13 of the Covenant.6 Article 13 of the Covenant offers some of the protection afforded by article 14, paragraph 1, of the Covenant but not the right of appeal. 7 The Committee therefore considers that the authors’ claim under article 14 is inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee furthermore considers the authors’ claims with respect to article 26 of the Covenant insufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and declares those claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ claims with respect to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. However, in the light of the extensive evidence submitted, both on the general country situation and on the authors’ personal circumstances, the Committee considers that the authors adequately explained the reasons for which they fear that their forcible return to the Russian Federation would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is, therefore, of the opinion that, for the purposes of admissibility, the authors have sufficiently substantiated the allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. As the case of Ms. X is dependent upon the case of Mr. X, the Committee does not find it necessary to consider the cases separately. 6.5 In the light of the above, the Committee declares the communication admissible in so far as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that: Mr. X’s entire family had problems with the Wahhabi militants and fled the Russian Federation for that reason; between 1999 and 2003, Mr. X was living in hiding out of fear of being recruited by the militants; in 2003, Mr. X was beaten up by a group of the militants as he refused to collaborate with them; in 2006, four members of the militants visited him at his home, informed him of an upcoming terrorist attack plan and of his anticipated role in it as a suicide bomber, told him that he and his wife would have to be killed in case of his upfront refusal to cooperate with the militants and took the authors’ identity papers; Mr. X informed the Federal Security Service about the planned terrorist attack and, subsequently, agents of the Federal Security Service killed three out of four members of the militants who had visited the authors. Finally, the Committee notes the authors’ fear that they will face a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant if they were to be forcibly returned to the Russian Federation. 6 7 10 See, inter alia, communication No. 1494/2006, A.C. et al. v. Netherlands, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 22 July 2008, para 8.4: “The Committee refers to its jurisprudence that deportation proceedings did not involve either ‘the determination of any criminal charge’ or ‘rights and obligations in a suit at law’ within the meaning of article 14” (citing communication No. 1234/2003, P.K. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility of 20 March 2007, paras. 7.4 and 7.5). See general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial, paras. 17 and 62.