CCPR/C/117/D/2469/2014 Annex II Individual opinion of Committee member Anja Seibert-Fohr (dissenting) 1. I am unable to agree with the majority on the Committee that Denmark would violate its obligation under article 7 if it deported the author to Afghanistan for the reasons below. 2. According to the Committee’s standing jurisprudence, States parties are under an obligation “not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove 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”. a The Committee reaffirms this principle in paragraph 9.3 of the Views, stressing in addition that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds is high. 3. It is thus for the author of a communication to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 6 or 7. Once such evidence is adduced, it is for the State party to dispel any doubts about it. b The Committee in paragraph 9.7 reaffirms that it is generally not for the Committee but for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether a real risk exists. Therefore, in the past the Committee has found decisions of local immigration authorities to be in violation of the Covenant if the author was able to point to substantial irregularities in the decision-making procedures, such as where no substantive justification was given for a decision, where inadequate consideration was given to the author’s Covenant rights or relevant evidence was not examined.c 4. In the present case, I am not able to recognize such shortcomings. The refugee appeals board considered the situation in Afghanistan and determined in reference to a judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that the employment as an interpreter for international security forces in itself does not form a basis for asylum. The author’s claim under article 7 hence stood or fell by his assertion that he would be at risk of assault because he had withheld information from a local officer of the Afghan Army affiliated with the Taliban. In his submission, the author claims that he had interpreted secret conversations concerning the officer and that shortly thereafter the officer had threatened to kill him if he did not inform him about such conversations. The author also claims that subsequently his brother-in-law was killed because of the author’s conflict with the officer. 5. The Danish authorities examined the author’s submissions. With respect to the murder of the author’s brother-in-law, the refugee appeals board questioned that it had related to the author and considered that the document from local police authorities confirming the link appeared to be fabricated for the occasion. Furthermore, the board found the author’s account of his alleged conflict with the officer to be incredible. During a b c See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See mutatis mutạndis, Sufi and Elmi v. the United Kingdom (applications nos. 8319/07 and 11449/07), judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 June 2011, para. 214. See, for example, communication No. 1222/2003, Byahuranga v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 November 2004, paras. 11.3 and 11.4; No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, para. 8.5; No. 1908/2009, X. v Republic of Korea, Views adopted on 25 March 2014, para. 11.5. 17