CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015 Committee recalls its jurisprudence in which it has stated that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.13 7.4 In the present case, the Committee observes that the author does not claim that he needs international protection because he did not perform compulsory military service in Egypt due to reasons of conscience. Rather, he mainly alleges that since he is a draft evader who left Egypt twice illegally, he would be classified as “wanted” by the Egyptian authorities and subjected to no less than seven years’ imprisonment under article 50 of the Military Conscription Law, as confirmed in the memorandum provided by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. According to the author, in order to determine the risk of harm that he would face in Egypt, his situation as repeat draft evader should be assessed together with his support for the Muslim Brotherhood, his opposition to President Al-Sisi and prison conditions in Egypt. 7.5 The Committee notes that the penalties imposed on a repeat draft evader in Egypt, as stated in the memorandum provided by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are lengthy, and that reports referred to by the parties,14 indicate that prison conditions are very harsh in Egypt; inmates are subjected to severe abuses by the authorities, including torture and enforced disappearance, as is particularly the case of members or supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood; and impunity for serious abuses remains in place. In the case at hand, however, the Committee observes that the author’s alleged support for the Muslim Brotherhood and former President Mursi is limited to opinions on Facebook and Twitter accounts that are not under his name. According to his own statements, he is not a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and has not personally carried out any activities in Egypt for the organization or in support of former President Mursi. Furthermore, he has not been a member of any political or religious association or organization. The Committee also observes that, although the author failed to perform his military service in 2005, he did not encounter problems with the authorities between 2005 and 2008. In that period, he was detained twice and subsequently released by the Egyptian authorities. Both times, the authorities were aware of his failure to perform military service and there were no consequences even though the latter case was related to his return after an illegal departure from Egypt. In 2012, after his second departure from Egypt, the author approached the Egyptian embassy in Rome and was able to obtain a passport without any problem. During all this time, the military did not make any inquiries about the author to his family in Egypt. Against that background, the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board dismissed the author’s request for asylum since they found that he had not rendered it probable in a credible fashion that, if returned to Egypt, the Egyptian authorities would persecute him and subject him to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant due to his draft evasion and alleged support for the Muslim Brotherhood. In examining the author’s asylum request, the authorities reviewed his allegations, taking into due consideration reports from States, non-governmental organizations and international organizations about the human rights situation in Egypt, as well as the memorandum provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the punishment of draft evaders in Egypt. They also noted the false claims made by the author in previous asylum proceedings, which detracted from his credibility. While the author disagrees with those decisions, he has not convincingly explained why he might be targeted by the Egyptian authorities due to his situation as a draft evader or why he might be perceived as a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood. The author has also not explained why the decisions of the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board are clearly arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable, for instance, owing to their failure to take properly into account a relevant risk factor. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the removal of the author to Egypt would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 13 14 See, inter alia, communications No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.4; and No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See footnotes 3 and 8 above. 9