CCPR/C/121/D/2594/2015 Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the authors’ allegations that M.S., who is 68 years old, has been diagnosed as suffering from depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and personality change, and has no support network in Afghanistan, would be subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if returned to Afghanistan. 7.3 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, which prohibits cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.19 7.4 The Committee further recalls that it is within the jurisdiction of the 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 clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.20 7.5 The Committee acknowledges M.S.’s advanced age, her diagnosed medical condition and her need for daily care and support. However, it notes that the Refugee Appeals Board assessed thoroughly M.S.’s grounds for asylum but considered that the author’s mental disorder did not require therapy, and that she would be returning with her adult son, K.S., who has lived in Afghanistan for many years, and therefore she could not be considered as not having a “support network”. The author challenges the assessment of evidence and the factual conclusions reached by the Board, but she does not provide convincing arguments for concluding that this assessment would be arbitrary or otherwise amount to a denial of justice. 7.6 The Committee notes, in particular, that the author was diagnosed in May 2014 with an unspecified degree of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and personality change, for which she is receiving no medical treatment or therapy, and that she has only been prescribed vitamins. It also notes that she would be returned together with her adult son K.S., who has lived in Afghanistan for a number of years. It further notes the authors’ argument that K.S. would not be able to support M.S. financially and care for her at the same time, and that M.S. relies on the daily support of her extended family in Denmark, which she would presumably not have in Afghanistan. However, the Committee considers that the authors have not provided any specific information or evidence suggesting that M.S.’s medical condition requires specialized assistance and/or medical treatment that she would be unable to obtain in Afghanistan. 7.7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to show that M.S.’s life or physical integrity would be at imminent and direct risk as a result of her removal to Afghanistan. 21 The Committee therefore concludes that the author M.S’s removal to Afghanistan would not constitute a violation of her rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 19 20 21 8 See, inter alia, communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communications No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7; No. 2053/2011, B.L. v. Australia, Views adopted on 16 October 2014; No. 2049/2011, Z. v. Australia, Views adopted on 18 July 2014, para 9.3; No. 1819/2008, A.A. v. Canada, inadmissibility decision adopted on 31 October 2011; and No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4. See communication No. 2060/2011, W.M.G. v. Canada, Views adopted on 11 March 2016, para. 7.4.