CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 personal circumstances of the author, and the incidents that were found credible at the domestic level, the Board failed to adequately assess the real, personal and foreseeable risk of ill-treatment for the author in his country of origin. 9.12 In addition, it has not been shown by the State party that the Afghan authorities would be able to provide protection for the author, considering especially the relevant reports on attacks against Afghan civilians who work or have worked for the international military. 9.13 In such circumstances, the Committee considers that the Refugee Appeals Board failed to adequately assess the author’s real, personal and foreseeable risk if he were returned to Afghanistan, which is based not solely on his profile as a former employee of the international forces but also on the risk of future ill-treatment by the Taliban which reasonably follows from his individual circumstances including his past ill-treatment in his country of origin. 9.14 As to the author’s assertion that he fears the Afghan authorities and the United States forces because they suspect him of having joined the Taliban, the Committee does not consider it necessary to question the Board’s finding that this is based on the author’s own assumption and therefore was not accepted as factual at the national level. 10. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would, if implemented, violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 11. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to proceed to a review of the author’s case taking into account the State party’s obligations under the Covenant and the Committee’s present Views. The State party is also requested to refrain from expelling the author while his request for asylum is being reconsidered. 12. Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and disseminate them widely in the official language of the State party. 11