CCPR/C/125/D/2672/2015 6.3 The State party also observes that the Dublin III Regulation governs the transfer of asylum seekers between Member States, and that the author does not fall within the scope of the Regulation because he is a recognized refugee in Italy. Moreover, the State party submits that the issue of family reunification is of no relevance to the author’s asylum claim. 7. On 9 August 2017, the author reiterates his non-refoulement claims, as well as his claims based on his right to family life. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another international procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation relating to his right to family life. However, it notes that this issue has never been raised before national authorities. Therefore, the Committee considers the new claim based on article 23 of the Covenant inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 The Committee notes the author’s statement that decisions by the Refugee Appeals Board of Denmark are not subject to appeal and that therefore domestic remedies have been exhausted. This has not been challenged by the State party. Therefore, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted with regard to the author’s claim based on article 7 of the Covenant, as required by article 5, paragraph 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that his return to Italy would put him at risk of being subject to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The author bases his allegation on general social and economic conditions for refugees in Italy. 8.6 The Committee also notes that the Refugee Appeals Board considered the personal and social circumstances of the author and the general situation of recognized refugees in Italy, and concluded that the author’s allegations about being forced to travel back to the Syrian Arab Republic because of the general conditions of asylum seekers or refugees in Italy as non-credible and fabricated for the occasion. 8.7 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of a case unless it can be established that such an assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 6 In the present case, the author has not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board would be contrary to this standard, nor has he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal to Italy would expose him to a real and personal risk of irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In particular, the Committee notes that the author has failed to provide any concrete and detailed information about his personal situation in Italy in 2013. The Committee accordingly concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of violation of article 7 for purposes of admissibility and finds his communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol; (b) 6 That the decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. See Manzano et al. v. Colombia (CCPR/C/98/D/1616/2007), para. 6.4, L.D.L.P v. Spain (CCPR/C/102/D/1622/2007), para. 6.3 and Cañada Mora v. Spain (CCPR/C/112/D/2070/2011), para. 4.3. 5