CCPR/C/116/D/2347/2014 Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal24 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.25 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 26 7.3 In the present case, the Committee observes that the reports on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka invoked by the parties indicate, inter alia, that, despite the change of conditions, human rights violations, including torture, continue to exist in the country and that certain individuals of Tamil ethnicity who are suspected of having links to LTTE may be in need of international protection.27 They also indicate, however, that not all persons of Tamil origin are at serious risk in Sri Lanka due to their ethnicity only. The Committee notes that none of the parties in this case contested the fact that the author is of Tamil ethnicity and that he has not been a member of any political or religious organization or been politically active. It also observes that the author does not argue that he was an LTTE member or that he has participated, supported or been involved in LTTE activities in any manner. Nor was he detained, ill-treated or tortured by the Sri Lankan police prior to his departure. He submits, however, that he fears that a former employee allegedly provided the police with a picture of the author holding a weapon with known members of LTTE in front of the LTTE logo; that it is likely that the girlfriend of the author’s former employee confessed and told the Government that she had carried out her activities for LTTE from the author’s shop and had used his shop as a meeting place; and that these elements are sufficient to conclude that he would be perceived as a person with links to LTTE. Against this background, the Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the author’s asylum request on 23 November 2010 and his request on 14 March 2011 to reopen the asylum proceedings, since it considered that the author had failed to substantiate that he would be at risk of persecution if returned to Sri Lanka. 7.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, 28 and that it is generally 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. 29 In the present case, the Committee observes that the Danish Immigration Service refused the author’s asylum request, that the author appealed that decision and that the Refugee Appeals Board upheld the former decision. The Committee notes that, in examining the author’s asylum request, the Board reviewed the author’s allegations in making a specific and individual risk assessment, taking into due consideration several reports by States and non-governmental organizations providing information concerning the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka. While the author challenges 24 25 26 27 28 29 Communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. Communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. See footnotes 7 and 13. Communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. 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. 9