CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 worked as a journalist in Bangladesh, it considers that he has not provided any probative evidence, such as articles that could be unequivocally attributed to him, to support his allegation that his work attracted the attention of police and thugs. 4.9 Similarly, the State party considers that apart from one alleged visit from the police in 2011 after the author had left Bangladesh—for which there is no objectively corroborating evidence, nor any real evidence that police were then, in fact, looking for the author for the alleged nefarious purposes he asserted—there is no indication that his family was the object of continued harassment or intimidation of any kind, even on an irregular basis. The State party submits that this further undermines the credibility of the author’s account. Moreover, it creates serious doubt that anyone is waiting for the author’s return, taking into account that almost four years have passed since the alleged threats in relation to the locally focused newspaper article in question and there have been no apparent further incidents involving his family or fellow journalist and co-author. 4.10 Third, the State party considers that the communication is inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded because even if reports tend to show that the situation of journalists in Bangladesh is generally less than ideal, the author has not substantiated the allegation that he would be personally at risk upon return. Indeed, the State party considers that the author’s allegations are all related to the general “risk to life” that he alleges he will face upon return to his country of origin and the communication is devoid of any explicit explanation relating to purported risks to his personal security or liberty (apart from a brief mention of the risk of arbitrary detention in some of the letters he offers in support), anticipated infringements of his freedom of expression or fears that he will suffer discrimination. The State party recalls that according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, “the existence of a pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights in a country is not enough; a complainant must show that he or she faces a foreseeable, real and personal risk”.12 4.11 The State party further contests the author’s assertion that the situation he would face in Bangladesh has become much more dangerous since January 2014. The State party considers that on the basis of much of the material submitted by the author himself, the more repressive climate for journalists in Bangladesh following the January 2014 elections may relate more narrowly to the intimidation faced by journalists covering the post-election protests. This is not relevant to the author, who was not in Bangladesh for the elections and never reported on those matters. In any case, the author has in no way established that he has a particularly prominent profile as a journalist or otherwise established any personalized risk, on even a prima facie basis. Finally, for the reasons described above, the State party also considers that the communication is wholly without merit. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations 5. In his comments dated 31 March 2015, the author asserts that the situation of journalists in Bangladesh is extremely dangerous, especially for individuals like the author who have openly criticized the actions of the Awami League. To support this assertion, the author cites recent reports by Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Odhikar, indicating that journalists and bloggers in Bangladesh have been arrested and attacked in 2014 and 2015.13 On 11 June 2015, the author reported that his new Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application had been denied on 13 May 2015. 12 13 10 The State party cites Committee against Torture communication No. 520/2012, W.G.D. v. Canada, decision adopted on 26 November 2014, paras. 8.3, 8.4 and 8.7. The author cites Reporters Without Borders, 2015 World Press Freedom Index; Committee to Protect Journalists, “Mission Journal: Bangladeshi press reined in as Hasina exerts authority”, 26 March 2015