CCPR/C/125/D/3041/2017 referred 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 articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal9 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.10 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. 11 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s statements regarding the arrest warrants against her in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the persecution that she and her family endured in Angola. The Committee observes, however, that the author’s pre-removal risk assessment filed and arguments thereby submitted were thoroughly examined by the State party’s authorities in the context of the consideration of her application for a pre-removal risk assessment, and subsequent application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Committee notes that, according to the documentation provided by the parties, the Canada Border Services Agency heard the author on various occasions and had identity documents provided by the author examined by experts to establish their authenticity. All the authorities identified contradictory and implausible elements in the author’s statements. In particular, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author has failed to substantiate or convincingly explain why the author and her husband are being persecuted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo even though their profiles do not correspond with those persecuted following the murder of the former President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (see para. 4.3), and that the State party questions whether the authors are actually citizens of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Committee also notes that the author has not convincingly demonstrated that she was persecuted in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, that her brother was killed in Angola because she was persecuted and that her mother’s leg had to be amputated for the same reasons, as she claims. Following the analysis of the case file, the Federal Court, on its decision of 26 May 2017, came to the conclusion that the author was not at risk of irreparable harm if she were deported to Angola, a country where she had lived for years. 7.5 The Committee notes that, although the author contests the assessment and findings of the Canadian authorities as to the risk of harm she faces in Angola and the risk of extradition to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, she has not presented any evidence to sufficiently substantiate her allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements provided by the author when evaluating the risk that she faced, and she has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process. The Committee also considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the authorities in the State party, she has not shown that they were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or that they amounted to a denial of justice. Consequently, the Committee considers that the evidence and circumstances mentioned by the author do not demonstrate that she would be at real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. In view thereof, the Committee is not able to conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant would be violated if she were removed to Angola. 7.6 With respect to the claim of violation of articles 17 (1), 23 (1) and 24 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee notes the author’s claims that her deportation with her two elder children constitutes interference in their right to family life since all members of the family have very strong ties, and that their separation would not be in the best interests of her children. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that it was the author’s decision to enter Canada without her husband that results now in their claims being considered 9 10 11 See K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.3, P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.2 and X. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. See X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2 and X. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. See, for example, K. v. Denmark, para. 7.4. 11