CCPR/C/115/D/2344/2014 Additional submissions from the authors 7.1 On 3 November 2014, the authors reiterated that cases involving asylum seekers involved in blood feuds in Albania had been appealed. They claimed that, out of nine cases of Albanian asylum seekers handled by the Danish Refugee Council in 2013 in which fear of blood revenge was part of the asylum motive, the Council had exercised its discretionary power in eight. That means that the Council had refused the use of the “manifestly unfounded” procedure in those eight cases, which were then sent for appeal before the refugee appeals board. 7.2 With respect to the risk faced in Albania in case of forcible return, the authors refer to their initial submission. They reiterate that proceedings are pending in their case before the High Court of Eastern Denmark. 7.3 Concerning article 14, the authors stress that the procedure in their case does not directly involve matters of expulsion of aliens, such as to fall under article 13, as the State party suggests. Rather, the authors’ allegation focuses on the formality of the lawsuit, more specifically the denial of suspensive effects in the proceeding. As such, it falls under article 14 of the Covenant. 7.4 On 7 September 2015, the authors informed the Committee that, by its decision of 2 September 2015, the High Court of Eastern Denmark upheld the decision of the District Court of Copenhagen of 22 May 2014 (see para. 6.2). The High Court of Eastern Denmark determined that it found no basis for overriding the immigration services’ assessment. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes that the authors have exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 8.4 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. 3 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal4 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.5 In making this assessment, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, 3 4 5 8 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See, for example, communications no. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; 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; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See, for example, X. v. Denmark (note 4 above), para. 9.2; no. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18.