CCPR/C/128/D/2984/2017 exists, unless it can be established that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.7 7.7 The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that its domestic authorities have carried out a thorough review of the author’s claims; that the documents submitted by the author had been deemed to be of a simple nature and thus afforded low probative value; that the author had not provided written documentation in support of his claim that he had worked as an interpreter for a non-governmental organization or that he had received threating letters. The Committee further notes that the author was not able to provide a reasonable explanation as to why he could not submit such documentation; that the author travelled between Rwanda and Uganda on several occasions and returned to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, despite the alleged personal risk of persecution by the Rwandan and Congolese authorities; that the Identity Unit of the Swedish Immigration Service found that the author’s Rwandan passport was valid; that the author travelled to Sweden with a valid visa granted in his Rwandan passport; and that the author argues that he was an interpreter dealing with information about abuses committed by both sides of the conflict, but that he did not indicate that he had been in possession of any further sensitive information that might be of interest to the M23 rebel group. 7.8 The Committee further notes the author’s assertion that the State party authorities, when assessing the human rights situation in Rwanda, have failed to consider the information available in a Human Rights Watch report, according to which many Rwandan refugees have been captured and deported to Rwanda from Uganda by government secret agents and have been subjected to torture or disappearance (see para. 5.3). However, the Committee observes that the M23 movement is not mentioned in that report. It also observes that, according to the information that is publicly available, the M23 movement was defeated by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in November 2013.8 7.9 The Committee observes that, while the author disagrees with the conclusions reached by the State party authorities, he has not shown that their assessment of the facts and evidence that he presented was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. The Committee considers that the author has failed to provide evidence to attain the basic level of substantiation of his claim of personal risk of irreparable harm that he would allegedly be facing upon deportation to Rwanda, as he did not submit any proof regarding the alleged threats received in Rwanda. Therefore, without prejudice to the continuing responsibility of the State party to take into account the present situation of the country to which the author would be deported and not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the general human rights situation in Rwanda, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 7 8 See, e.g., K v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.4; and Z.H. v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. See, e.g., Human Rights Watch, “‘Special mission’: recruitment of M23 rebels to suppress protests in the Democratic Republic of Congo”, 4 December 2017. 9