CCPR/C/125/D/2323/2013 materiae with the provisions of the Covenant and should be declared inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. These articles do not impose an obligation on States to refrain from removing individuals who may face a real risk of discrimination and unequal treatment in the receiving State. 4.11 Should the communication be declared admissible, the State party asserts on the basis of the same submission that it is wholly without merits. Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5. On 19 August 2014, the authors’ counsel informed the Committee that due to a lack of communication with the authors following their deportation to Romania, he refers to the initial submission of 23 December 2013. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claim that by forcibly returning them and their children to Romania, the State party would violate their rights under articles 3, 6 (1), 7, 9 (1), 17 (1), 24 (1), 26 and 27 of the Covenant. 6.5 The Committee notes that the authors have alleged a violation of articles 9 (1), 17 (1), 24 (1), 26 and 27 of the Covenant, but without providing any information, evidence or explanation about how their rights under those articles would be violated by the State party through their removal to Romania. The Committee therefore concludes that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated and declares it inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee also notes the authors’ allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant that their safety and lives would be in danger if they were returned to Romania due to persecution based on their Roma origin. The Committee recalls that “it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to review facts and evidence, or the application of domestic legislation, in a particular case, unless it can be shown that such evaluation or application was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality”.8 The Committee notes that the authors have failed to demonstrate that such shortcomings existed in the conduct of the proceedings in their case. The authors have also failed to justify how the 12-month period of ineligibility to apply for a pre-removal risk assessment in itself affected their rights under the relevant provisions. Moreover, while the Committee is well aware that Roma continue to be the victims of racial stereotyping and racial discrimination in different areas in Romania, 9 the authors have not adduced any evidence to demonstrate that, following their deportation to Romania, they ran a real and personal risk of irreparable harm. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8 9 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. CCPR/C/ROU/CO/5, pp. 2–3; and CERD/C/ROU/CO/16-19. 5