CCPR/C/115/D/2258/2013 controlled by LTTE for many years. In addition, the authorities had not taken into account their young age, limited cognitive skills and mental health. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required under article 5 2 (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes that the authors unsuccessfully appealed the refusal of their asylum claim to the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, as well as the denial of residence permits under section 9c (3) (ii) of the Aliens Act to the Ministry of Justice; and that the State party does not challenge the claim that the authors have exhausted all domestic remedies. The Committee therefore considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted according to article 5 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claims under article 7 of the Covenant that, if returned to Sri Lanka, they would be at risk of being tortured or killed. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the authors’ claims under article 7 are unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the authors have provided sufficient substantiation regarding their claims. As no other obstacles to admissibility exist, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds to its consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when 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. 9 The Committee has indicated that such a risk must be personal 10 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 11 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.12 7.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate the facts and evidence of the case in order to 9 10 11 12 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; as well as the following decisions of the Committee against Torture: No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and communication No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. 9