CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 author has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that, as an interpreter, which implies a manifestation of his right to freedom of expression, his rights under article 19 would be breached if he was removed to Afghanistan. In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party has argued that the author’s claim under article 19 is inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant imposes an obligation upon States Parties not to deport a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, in the country to which removal is to be effected.13 Accordingly, to the extent that the author’s allegations of a violation of article 19 rely on consequences that he would allegedly suffer if returned to Afghanistan, and that article 19 does not have extraterritorial application, the Committee considers that this part of the author’s complaint is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Covenant and declares it inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to article 7 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation, as the author “has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication”. At the same time, however, the Committee notes the author’s detailed claims regarding the existing risks for him if deported to Afghanistan due to his past work as an interpreter in favour of the United States forces in Afghanistan for close to two years, including with United States intelligence. The Committee further notes the author’s allegations that, because of his work with United States intelligence, he had a conflict with a powerful local officer and entrepreneur affiliated with the Taliban, who may be involved in the murder of his brother-in-law. The author has claimed that those elements provide substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Afghanistan. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under article 7 of the Covenant. 8.5 In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the communication is admissible, insofar as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the author to Afghanistan would amount to a violation by the State party of its obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 9.3 The Committee recalls 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 13 See General comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. 11