CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 14 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal15 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.16 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.17 9.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that, as a result of his work as interpreter for the United States forces in Afghanistan between 2009 and 2011, including the intelligence services, and because of a related conflict with a powerful individual affiliated with the Taliban, he faces a real and personal risk to be subjected to a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant, if forcibly returned to Afghanistan. 9.5 The Committee notes the State party’s general observation that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, under which a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in case of his return to his country of origin. The Committee further notes the State party’s observation that the onus is on the asylum seeker to substantiate his claim; that the refugee appeals board will accept apparently coherent and consistent statements as facts; and that inconsistent statements may weaken the asylum seeker’s credibility. 9.6 With respect to the particular circumstances of the case, the Committee observes that the State party has rejected the author’s allegations, mainly on the grounds that the author made several inconsistent statements. In its decision of 31 January 2013, upheld on 2 March 2015, the refugee appeals board has challenged, in particular, the author’s statements with respect to his attempts to establish contacts with the United States intelligence officer M.W.; the date on which the author became aware of the imminent arrest of A.M.W.; and the period of employment of the author with the company Mission Essential Personnel. The board also rejected the author’s claim that his brother-in-law was killed by individuals who had been searching for the author. 9.7 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the States parties’ authorities, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, 18 and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists. 19 9.8 The Committee finds that, in the circumstances, and notwithstanding the inconsistencies highlighted by the State party, insufficient attention was given to the author’s allegations about the real risk he might face if deported to his country of origin. 14 15 16 17 18 19 12 See general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 12. See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, J.J. N. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See, for example, J.J. N. v. Denmark (note 17 above), para. 9.2; No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. See, inter alia, ibid. and communication No. 541/1993, Errol Simms v. Jamaica, inadmissibility decision adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4 and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See also communications No. 1819/2008, A.A. v. Canada, inadmissibility decision adopted on 31 October 2010, para. 7.8, and No. 2049/2011, Z. v. Australia, Views adopted on 18 July 2014, para. 9.3.