CCPR/C/119/D/2530/2015 forcible return to another country would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant.11 State party’s additional observations 6.1 In observations dated 30 June 2016, the State party considers that the authors’ new allegation that G’s family is staying in a local church owing to persecution cannot be taken into account because it has not been substantiated. 6.2 The reasoning of the Board is not circular, because it found the authors’ statements to lack credibility owing to their lack of consistency. It was on this basis that the Board decided not to adjourn the case to allow F to be medically examined. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes, 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. 7.3 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 the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that they would face torture if they were removed to Egypt because they are Coptic Christians and because they had a conflict with their neighbour, who threatened them at their home. The Committee also notes the authors’ assertion that F was arbitrarily detained and tortured in Egypt and risks facing the same treatment if he returns, but was not permitted by the Board to postpone his hearing in order to undergo a medical examination for signs of torture. The Committee also takes note of G’s claim that she was subjected to assault and attempted rape by men associated with the authors’ neighbour. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that the authors’ claims are manifestly unfounded, and that their claims under articles 9 and 18 (1) are inadmissible ratione materiae and ratione loci. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the Board found that, owing to multiple inconsistencies in their statements, the authors were not credible concerning the risk of harm they alleged they would face in Egypt. The Committee also takes note of the authors’ assertion that these inconsistencies were due in part to the trauma that they had endured. The Committee considers that the authors have provided sufficient explanations as to the reasons for which they fear that forcible return to Egypt would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. They have also argued that the Board denied them the opportunity to provide medical evidence to substantiate their claims regarding the torture that F endured in detention. The Committee therefore considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the authors have sufficiently substantiated their allegations under article 7.12 7.6 As for the authors’ claims under articles 9 and 18 (1) regarding the risk of arbitrary detention that F would face in Egypt, and the risk that both authors would face in Egypt owing to their adherence to the Coptic Christian faith and the particular situation of the family, the Committee considers that these claims cannot be dissociated from the authors’ 11 12 6 See communications No. 2186/2012, X and X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 October 2014; and No. 2053/2011, B.L. v. Australia, Views adopted on 16 October 2014. See communication No. 2347/2014, K.G. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 March 2016, para. 6.4.