CCPR/C/119/D/2530/2015 allegations under article 7. 13 Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in paragraph 12 of 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 in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.14 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 15 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 16 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 clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.17 8.3 The Committee notes the finding by the Board that, owing to inconsistencies in their statements, the authors were not credible concerning the risk of harm they allege they would face in Egypt. The Committee notes in this respect the authors’ assertion that these inconsistencies were due in part to the trauma that they have endured. The Committee considers that notwithstanding the inconsistencies highlighted by the State party, the domestic decision makers did not provide any analysis of G’s allegations that three men had attempted to rape her in connection with her conflict with her neighbour and of F’s detailed assertions that he had been brutally tortured and sexually assaulted by the Egyptian authorities. Furthermore, the inconsistencies in the authors’ factual allegations pointed to by the State party did not go to the core of the authors’ claims regarding the personalized risk linked both to the authors’ membership of a vulnerable group and the abuse they suffered as a result of the neighbour’s religious conversion. 8.4 Given the serious nature of the allegations and F’s claim that he retained scars from the beatings, the Committee also considers that the Board should have allowed F to be medically examined in order to afford him the opportunity to substantiate his claim. 8.5 The Committee therefore considers that the Board did not adequately examine the authors’ claims concerning the reasons for which they fled Egypt. Against the background concerning the continuing situation of the Coptic community in Egypt referred to by the authors, the Committee considers that under the totality of the circumstances, the authors have presented compelling evidence to indicate that their return to Egypt would be accompanied by a personal and real risk of irreparable harm, such that the State party would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant by removing them to Egypt. 8.6 In the light of these findings, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine separately the authors’ claims under articles 9 and 18 (1). 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the authors’ removal to Egypt would violate their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10. In accordance with article 2 (1) of the Covenant, which establishes that States parties undertake to respect and ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their 13 14 15 16 17 See communication No. 2291/2013, A and B v. Denmark, Views adopted on 13 July 2016, para. 7.4. See communication No. 2357/2014, A v. Denmark, decision adopted on 30 March 2016, para. 7.4. See, inter alia, communication No. 2291/2013, para. 8.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 2474/2014, X v. Norway, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 7.3; No. 2366/2014, X v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, communications No. 2559/2015, I.M.Y. v. Denmark, decision adopted on 14 July 2016, para. 7.6; and No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.4. 7