CCPR/C/114/D/2426/2014 6.6 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of a case, unless it can be established that such an assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.6 The author has not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board would be contrary to this standard, nor has he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee accordingly concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of violation of article 7 for purposes of admissibility and finds his communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the decision be shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 6 8 See communications Nos. 1616/2007, Manzano et al. v. Colombia, decision adopted on 19 March 2010, para. 6.4, 1622/2007, L.D.L.P v. Spain, decision adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 6.3; and 2070/2011, Cañada Mora v. Spain, decision adopted on 28 October 2014, para. 4.3.