CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 of their rights to liberty or security of the person, their freedom of opinion and expression or their right to equality in the receiving State.8 The State party further considers that any alleged risk to the author’s security of the person under article 9 (1) can be considered as part of the assessment of his complaint in relation to article 6 (1). It also considers that the author has not clearly articulated how his removal to Bangladesh would violate the State party’s obligations under articles 9 (1), 19 or 26 of the Covenant; he presumably contends, with respect to article 9 (1), that he would face a risk of arbitrary arrest or detention in Bangladesh. The author has not alleged that the State party has subjected him to arbitrary arrest or detention. In fact, the author has never been detained in Canada during the course of his immigration proceedings. 4.3 Moreover, the State party considers that the communication is inadmissible as being manifestly unfounded for three reasons. First, with regard to the negative credibility findings of the State party’s authorities, it is not the Committee’s role to review credibility assessments made by domestic decision makers. The author’s allegations before the Committee are based on the same facts and evidence that were presented to the Refugee Protection Division and the Federal Court and that have been filed before the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment officer. The Division rejected the author’s narrative of feared persecution on two grounds: credibility issues and the Division’s appreciation of the totality of the evidence submitted in support of the claim for protection. The Division reasoned that although it believed that the author was a journalist in Bangladesh who may have written one article condemning Awami League members and co-written one article condemning police corruption, the salient question was whether he was persecuted or targeted as a result of his work as a journalist in Bangladesh. Despite the Division’s determination that the author lacked credibility, it nevertheless fully considered the objective documentary evidence he submitted concerning his alleged situation as a journalist who had published incriminatory articles in Bangladesh. 4.4 Notably, the Refugee Protection Division did not find it credible that the author could be persecuted by the Bangladeshi police because, when prompted at the hearing to identify the incidents related to his fear, he failed to mention the 14 October incident he had referred to in his Personal Information Form, which the Division considered to be the sole incident in support of his claim that he feared the police. 9 The Division determined that it was reasonable to expect that the author should have recalled this single incident related to his fear of the police; his failure to remember it adversely affected the credibility of his allegations. Moreover, when asked by the Division about his colleague A, with whom the author co-wrote an article on police corruption and with whom the author claims he had spoken a few times since being in Canada, including about a month prior to the Division hearing, the author categorically indicated that A was still working for the same newspaper and had not had any incidents with the police. The Division was concerned about this discrepancy, since it was not credible that A, a fellow journalist in essentially the same situation as the author in the context of allegations of justifiable fear of the police, had had no problems with the police. When questioned further about why A would not have been subjected to the same treatment from the police as the author, the latter adjusted his testimony to first say that A was no longer working for the crime department of the newspaper, only to later change his testimony again and say that the police had sought out 8 9 The State party considers, however, that any alleged risk to the author’s security of the person under article 9 (1) of the Covenant can be considered as part of the assessment of his complaint in relation to articles 6 (1) and 7. The State party further notes that on the form for his claim for protection as a refugee, which he signed on 23 November 2011, the author stated that he has been “sought by the police” but that he has never “been arrested” or “been detained by the police”. 7