CCPR/C/116/D/2347/2014 Board found that there may be an imputed link between the author and LTTE. The author contends in this respect that the burden of proof put on him to substantiate his asylum claim cannot be met without becoming exposed to the Sri Lankan authorities. Accordingly, the author contends that the specific and individual assessment stressed by the State party in its observations is illusory and contrary to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in N.A. v. the United Kingdom. 5.8 The author further observes that it has been established that even a weak link to LTTE puts Tamil returnees in Sri Lanka at risk of being subjected to torture or illtreatment, the return of Tamil asylum seekers with an established link to LTTE thus constituting a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The author finally reiterates that his deportation to Sri Lanka by Denmark would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim with respect to article 7 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. The Committee considers, however, that the author has adequately explained why he fears that forcible return to Sri Lanka would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under article 7 with plausible arguments in support thereof. 6.5 Accordingly, the Committee considers that, under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the communication is admissible in so far as it raises issues relating to article 7 of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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 article 7 of the Covenant. The 8