CCPR/C/127/D/2654/2015 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.21 7.8 The Committee further recalls that the obligation under the Covenant not to remove an individual applies at the time of removal and that, in cases of imminent deportation, the material point in time for assessing the issue must be that of its own consideration of the case. Accordingly, in the context of the communications procedure under the Optional Protocol, in assessing the facts submitted by the parties for consideration, the Committee must also take into account new developments that may have an impact on the risks that an author subject to removal may face. In the present case, the information in the public domain has signalled a deterioration in the situation in Myanmar in recent times. However, on the basis of the information in the case file, the Committee is not in a position to assess the extent to which the current situation in Myanmar may have an impact on the author’s personal risk. In this context, the Committee recalls that it remains the responsibility of the State party to continuously assess the risk that any individual would face in case of return to another country before the State takes any final action regarding deportation or removal. 22 7.9 In the present case, the Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board pointed to several contradictions in the author’s accounts of the facts and that, even though the Board found it credible that the author was hurt in a road accident, it considered that the author could not establish the alleged link between that accident and the ensuing inquiries by the soldiers at his home. Nor could the Board accept that the accident had led to a perpetual conflict between the author and the armed forces of Myanmar. The Committee considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, the information before the Committee does not indicate that those findings are manifestly unreasonable.23 The Committee considers that the author has not established a sufficient basis for his claim that the evaluation of his asylum application by the Danish authorities was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 24 Therefore, without prejudice to the continuing responsibility of the State party to take into account the situation in the country to which the author would be deported and not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the general human rights situation in northern Myanmar,25 the Committee considers that, in the light of the available information regarding the author’s personal circumstances, the author’s claims under article 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated and are therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be transmitted to the State party and to the author. 21 22 23 24 25 8 See, for example, I.M.Y. v. Denmark, (CCPR/C/117/D/2559/2015), para. 7.6; and K v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.4. H.A. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/123/D/2328/2014), para. 9.8. R.G. et al. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014), para. 7.7. See, for example, A v. Denmark, para. 7.4. See, for example, the reports of the independent international fact-finding mission on Myanmar (A/HRC/39/64 and A/HRC/42/50).