CCPR/C/117/D/2387/2014 nature to the substantive rights allegedly violated, have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility.23 7.6 With respect to the author’s claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that on 15 June 2012, the Minister’s delegate found that the author did not face an individualized risk of serious harm, that he posed a danger to the Canadian public due to “serious criminality” and that, despite his refugee status, he could be deported to his country of origin. The Committee notes that the author has provided details about the alleged risk of being deprived of his life or suffering torture or ill-treatment. It also notes his claims of a generalized risk of irreparable harm owing to the insecurity and living conditions in Somalia and because of his family profile and his status as a young, nonextremist Muslim man. The Committee further notes the author’s assertions about the killing of his relatives, the absence of clan protection, his Western identity and appearance and lack of local knowledge and support networks. The Committee accordingly considers the author’s claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 to have been sufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility. 7.7 As to the author’s allegations that his prospective removal to Somalia and separation from his family would constitute arbitrary or unlawful interference with his family life, the Committee notes the author’s argument that his deportation would interfere with his relations and ability to maintain contact with his immediate family and significant network of friends in Canada. The Committee also notes his argument that before his detention, the author was providing daily support and care to his ailing mother. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s situation raises issues under articles 17 and 23 (1) and proceeds to their consideration on the merits. 7.8 The Committee notes that the author has indicated that he is not pursuing his claims under articles 12 (4), 13 and 18 of the Covenant, and left them without substantiation. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that that part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.9 The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 (1), 7, 17 and 23 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. Articles 6 (1) and 7 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he would face torture or ill-treatment in case of return to Somalia as he fits into several of the risk categories identified by UNHCR, and that he faces specific, personal risks in Somalia. It also notes that, according to the State party, the domestic decision makers were not satisfied that the author would be targeted by Al-Shabaab if he were returned to Somalia. 8.3 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 of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal, 24 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general 23 24 GE.17-03930 See Choudhary v. Canada, para. 8.4; Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.7; Peirano Basso v. Uruguay, para. 9.4; P.K. v. Canada, para. 7.6; Rogerson v. Australia, para. 7.9; and C.E.A. v. Finland, para. 6.2. See communications No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.3; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2; and No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. 11