CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014 of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 19 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 20 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.21 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 22 9.4 While noting the reports cited by the author concerning serious human rights violations against journalists in Bangladesh, especially those who report on corruption and other politically sensitive matters, the Committee observes that the author’s claims were thoroughly examined by the State party’s authorities in the context of his refugee claim and Pre-Removal Risk Assessment application. The Refugee Protection Division found that while the author may have worked as an investigative journalist in Bangladesh, he had not substantiated his claims concerning alleged attacks and threats directed towards him personally; that he had not shown he would be of interest today to the Bangladeshi police or to individuals working for the Awami League; that the evidence he tendered to substantiate his claims did not have sufficient probative value; 23 and that while he submitted material referring in general terms to human rights violations encountered by journalists in Bangladesh, he did not provide any material indicating that he would be personally targeted. 9.5 The Committee further notes that although the author contests the Refugee Protection Division’s finding as to the risk of harm he faces in Bangladesh, he has not attempted to refute any of the specific credibility concerns raised by the Division or the PreRemoval Risk Assessment Office concerning the documentation he provided or his testimony before the domestic authorities.24 In this regard, the Committee observes that the author has not explained why the name of the author of the article published in The Daily Kaler Kontho that he provides to show that he is at risk is different from his own name, or how he would be identified as the author of such articles if he were returned to Bangladesh. The Committee also takes note that the author has not commented on the observations of the Refugee Protection Division and the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Office that he had stated that the co-author of the Daily Kaler Kontho article, who is still in Bangladesh, has not experienced any problems with the police there. While the author asserts that he did not have a fair opportunity to contest the merits of the Division’s decision before the Federal Court, he does not specify the basis of his application for leave for judicial review and does not comment on the State party’s observation that such applications are granted where there is a “fairly arguable case” or “a serious question to be determined”. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decisionmaking process or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. The Committee considers that while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has not shown that they were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. In the light of the above, the 19 20 21 22 23 24 14 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See, inter alia, K v. Denmark, para. 7.3; communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2; X v. Denmark, para. 9.2. See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; communication No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See, inter alia, K v. Denmark, para. 7.4. See paras. 4.4-4.9 above. See paras. 4.4, 4.5, 4.7 and 4.8 above.