CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014 that the authors’ claims with respect to articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible because they have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their communication because it has not been established that there are substantial grounds for believing that the authors will be in danger of being deprived of their lives, subjected to persecution or ill-treatment as a consequence of their religious beliefs and deprived of the right to exercise their religion in public if returned to Pakistan. The Committee furthermore notes the State party’s argument that the authors have tried to use the Committee as an appellate body to re-evaluate the facts and circumstances of the asylum claim that was adjudicated by national authorities. 7.4 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 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.14 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal15 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.16 In making this assessment, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.17 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice,18 and that it is generally for organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.19 7.5 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that they were subjected to harassment in Pakistan because of their Christian background. In this connection, the Committee notes that the authors point to the attack suffered by I.G. on 25 May 2012 and to the attack against the whole family by four young men on their way home from church on Sunday, 27 May 2012. The authors also refer to the alleged arson attack on their home on 27 May 2012 and to the attempted shooting of G in May and November 2011. The Committee further notes the authors’ fear that they will be at a high risk of being exposed to threats to life and serious harm, including rape of the minor girls; persecution or ill-treatment by the authorities or private individuals as a consequence of their religious beliefs; and hindrance in the free exercise of their religion, as they will be forced to hide, contrary to articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant, if they were to be forcibly returned to Pakistan. The Committee notes, however, the Board’s findings that R.G.’s statement on the circumstances concerning the fire, which is a crucial part of the authors’ grounds for seeking asylum, appear to be so incoherent, inaccurate and on certain points inconsistent that the details could not be established as facts; that the authors did not refer to G and his wife’s conflict with her family until after the couple had been granted residence under section 7 (1) of the Aliens Act; and that they did not establish that they would be exposed to a risk of abuse by the wife’s family as a consequence of G’s marriage. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the authors allege fear of suffering harm at the hands of private individuals, 14 15 16 17 18 19 12 See general comment No. 31, para. 12. See, for example, J.J.M. v. Denmark, para. 9.2. See, for example, J.J.M. v. Denmark, para. 9.2 and communication No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. Ibid. See also communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4 and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3.