CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 considered the general human rights situation in Afghanistan based on reports submitted by the author, within the context of the author’s personal circumstances.3 6. Although we consider that deportation to Afghanistan may put the author in a more difficult situation than that which he is currently facing in Denmark, this Committee is not in receipt of information that would allow us to challenge the risk assessment undertaken by the Danish authorities. In particular, there is insufficient information before us to hold that the difficulties the author will face upon his return to Afghanistan are likely to reach the level of risk of irreparable serious harm that would result in a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 7. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the decision of the Danish authorities to refuse the author’s asylum request was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice that would entail a violation of article 7 of the Covenant by Denmark. 3 Such an analysis is in line with the Committee’s jurisprudence, which states that general reports of non-governmental organizations alone are insufficient to establish ill-treatment, and as such, care must be taken in evaluating an author’s submission that is not supported by additional verifiable evidence. See Kouidis v. Greece (CCPR/C/86/D/1070/2002), paras. 7.3–7.4. 13