CCPR/C/115/D/1895/2009 sufficiently substantiate his claim under article 16 of the Covenant, in the light of the facts as submitted. The Committee therefore considers that the author ’s claims under articles 2, 3, 16 and 26 have not been sufficiently substantiated and that, consequently, this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee has taken note of the author ’s complaint under articles 23 and 24 of the Covenant, but considers that, here again, he has failed to show in what way the State party has subjected his family to arbitrary or unlawful interference or would be responsible for such interference if the author and his family were returned to Rwanda. With respect to article 24, the author has provided no evidence in support of his allegation to show that the State party has breached or would breach its obligation to protect his two minor children. Accordingly, this part of the communication is also inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 With regard to the author ’s fear of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if he were to be returned to Rwanda, the Committee notes that he has obtained a residence permit for Belgium, valid from 28 July 2015 to 28 July 2020, and that he is therefore no longer liable to be deported from Belgium to Rwanda. 6.7 The Committee notes that the author ’s marriage to A.B.K. — who was named as a co-author of the initial communication — was dissolved following their divorce, which was granted on 3 May 2012. With regard to the author ’s two minor daughters, N.U.R. and S.B.R., aged 7 and 8, the Committee notes that the author has provided no evidence that they are at any risk of deportation, so that such a risk does not go beyond the bounds of eventuality and theoretical possibility, 8 and must be considered hypothetical. Consequently, neither the principal author, nor A.B.K., nor their two minor children can, at the present time, claim the status of victim w ithin the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 7. The Committee therefore decides: (a) That the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 2 of the Optional Protocol; (b) That this decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author of the communication. __________________ 8 GE.15-21844 See, inter alia, communications No. 2197/2012, X.Q.H. v. New Zealand, inadmissibility decision of 25 March 2014, para. 6.3; and No. 932/2000, Gillot et al. v. France, Views adopted on 15 July 2002, para. 10.5. 7/7