CCPR/C/128/D/3012/2017 7.7 The Committee recalls that the obligation not to remove an individual contrary to a State party’s obligations under the Covenant applies at the time of removal and that, in cases of imminent deportation, the material point in time for assessing this issue must be that of its own consideration of the case. 10 Accordingly, in the context of the communications procedure under the Optional Protocol, in assessing the facts submitted by the parties for consideration, the Committee must also take into account new developments that may have an impact on the risks that an author who is subject to removal may face. In the present case, the information in the public domain has indicated the prevalence of human rights violations in Somalia.11 However, on the basis of the information in the case file, the Committee is not in a position to assess the extent to which the current situation in her country of origin may impact the author’s personal risk. In this context, the Committee recalls that it remains the responsibility of the State party to continuously assess the risk that any individual would face in case of return to another country before the State takes any final action regarding his or her deportation or removal. 7.8 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, the Committee considers that, in the light of the available information regarding the author’s personal circumstances, the author’s claims under article 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. 10 11 For example, S.Z. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015), para. 7.9. For example, A/HRC/42/62. 7