CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 cannot be considered as offering him an effective remedy under the circumstances. 17 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol due to insufficient substantiation. Concerning the author’s claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author has explained that the reasons he fears being returned to Bangladesh are based on his status as a supporter of the Bangladesh National Party and his investigative journalism uncovering alleged illicit government activity and corruption. The Committee notes that the author has not provided any information or documentation indicating that he was targeted due to his support for the Bangladesh National Party. The Committee therefore finds this aspect of the author’s claim inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. However, the Committee finds that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has provided sufficient details and documentary evidence regarding his personal risk of facing death or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment due to his work as an investigative journalist in Bangladesh and therefore finds this part of the communication admissible.18 8.5 With regard to the author’s claims under articles 9 (1), 19 (1) and (2), and 26 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that its non-refoulement obligations do not extend to potential breaches of these provisions and that these claims are therefore inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee further notes the State party’s observation that the author has not clearly articulated how his removal to Bangladesh would violate the State party’s obligations under these articles. The Committee finds that the author failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, his allegations under articles 9 (1), 19 (1) and (2), and 26. Accordingly, the Committee declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 (1) and 7 and proceeds to consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he would face ill-treatment if he were removed to Bangladesh due to his work as an investigative journalist who authored articles exposing criminal activity by the ruling party and the police force. It also notes the State party’s observations that the domestic decision makers were not satisfied that the author had been personally targeted as a journalist, or would be targeted if he returned to the country. The Committee further takes note of the State party’s observation that it is not the Committee’s role to review credibility assessments made by domestic decision makers. 9.3 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 17 18 See communication 1898/2008, Naveed Akram Choudhary v. Canada, Views adopted on 28 October 2013, para. 8.3; Warsame v. Canada, para. 7.4. See communication No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 8.6. 13