CCPR/C/115/D/2344/2014 8.9 With regard to the authors’ claim under article 6, the Committee notes the State party’s challenge as to the admissibility of such a claim for lack of sufficient substantiation. The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they fear for their lives in the event of a forcible return to Albania on account of the blood-feud dispute that has long opposed them to the Shtjefni family and the related threats and searches for the authors’ family members, which prompted F.P. to move to the village of Skhoder and later to Urae Shtrejt with her children. The Committee also notes that the authors allege fear of death at the hands of private individuals located in Skhoder but that they have failed to provide convincing evidence that the Albanian authorities are unwilling or unable to protect them in all locations throughout Albania. Nor have they presented any reason as to why it would be unreasonable for them to live in other locations in Albania, far removed from Skhoder or Urae Shtrejt, where they would be safer. 8.10 The Committee notes that the immigration service determined that the conflict opposing the authors to the Shtjefni family was not of an intensity and character such as to fall into the ambit of article 7 of the Aliens Act, which provides for persecution grounds entitling applicants to asylum, and which partly overlap with articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The immigration service further determined that the authors could settle in a different location in Albania, where the Shtjefni family would not be able to locate them. The authors disagree with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, but the information before the Committee does not show that those findings are manifestly unreasonable. 8.11 The authors have not convincingly identified any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. In the light of the above, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claim that their return to Albania would breach article 6 of the Covenant. 9. 10 The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) authors. That this decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the