CCPR/C/128/D/2984/2017 subsequently not made. The Agency found that the author had not plausibly demonstrated that there were lasting impediments to the enforcement of the author’s expulsion to Rwanda in compliance with the Aliens Act. 6.4 In the light of this information, the State party maintains its position that the author’s account and the facts relied on by him in the complaint are insufficient to conclude that the alleged risk of ill-treatment upon his return to the country of origin meets the requirements of being foreseeable, real and personal. Consequently, the State party affirms that an enforcement of the expulsion order would not constitute a violation of its obligation under article 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, that the author exhausted all the domestic remedies available to him. In absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes that, according to the State party, the communication should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, for failure to attain the basic level of substantiation. In that regard, the Committee notes the author’s claims that his forcible return to Rwanda would result in a risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, as he may be arrested by the Rwandan government authorities because he had refused to join the M23 movement in 2012 and could be perceived to be a Congolese spy. It also notes the author’s claims that, if he were returned to Rwanda, he would face a risk of persecution by members of the M23 movement for not supporting them in their fight for the Tutsis. It further notes the author’s allegations that, while living in Rwanda, he and his family were subjected to threats by some of the members of M23, who accused them of not supporting the movement; that his parents and younger brother were killed and his sisters violated in Goma, where he worked as an interpreter for a human rights organization; and that, while living in Uganda, where he was granted asylum, he was assaulted and threatened by former M23 militia members. It further notes the author’s claims that the State party intends to expel him to Rwanda, which is not his country of origin, and that it initially dismissed the identity documents he submitted as evidence of his Congolese nationality. 7.5 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. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the risk must be personal 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 human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 7.6 The Committee further 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 a real risk of irreparable harm 8