CCPR/C/117/D/2443/2014 that this is circular reasoning, because an investigation for torture could confirm if the asylum seeker’s statements are wrong or correct. 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 it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 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. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 8.4 The Committee has taken note, first, of the author’s general claims regarding a possible arbitrary detention she may face if returned to the Russian Federation, in violation of her rights under article 9 of the Covenant. In that connection, the Committee recalls paragraph 12 of 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 considers that the author has failed to provide sufficient information and factual support regarding this particular claim. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate this claim for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible as manifestly unfounded since the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purposes of admissibility owing to insufficient substantiation. However, the Committee considers that the author has adequately explained the reasons for fearing that her forcible return to the Russian Federation would result in a risk, for her, of a treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. 8.6 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the communication is admissible in so far as it raises issues relating to article 7 of the Covenant and proceeds with the examination of its merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee must decide, first, whether the author’s removal to the Russian Federation would constitute a violation of her rights under article 7 of the Covenant. In this connection, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, 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 9