CCPR/C/115/D/2351/2014 State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 5 September 2014, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility and the merits of the communication. The State party considers that the authors have failed to substantiate a risk of irreparable harm if returned to Pakistan, and for the same reasons considers the communication inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded due to a lack of substantiation. 4.2 Regarding the claims under article 6 of the Covenant, the State party submits that this provision includes the right of a person not to be deprived of his life arbitrarily or unlawfully by the State or its agents, or by private persons or non-State entities in violation of the positive obligation that States parties incur to adopt measures to protect the life of the people.6 4.3 Concerning article 7 of the Covenant, the State party refers to the jurisprudence of the Committee according to which States parties are under an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where the necessary and foreseeable consequence of the deportation would be a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected, or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. The State party recalls that under the Committee’s jurisprudence, the risk must be personal, and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk or irreparable harm exists.7 The State party notes that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, under which a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment should he be returned to his country of origin. 4.4 As regards articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, the State party also submits, for the reasons stated below, that the authors 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 or subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to Pakistan. The State party therefore considers that this part of the communication is not sufficiently substantiated and should be declared inadmissible. 4.5 Concerning article 18 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the authors have failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of their communication under article 18 of the Covenant because they have not demonstrated that there are substantial grounds for believing that their rights in this regard have been violated. Thus, the State party considers that this part of the communication should also be held inadmissible. 4.6 Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party submits that the authors have not sufficiently established that their deportation to Pakistan would amount to a violation of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. It argues that the authors, in their communication of 4 March 2014, do not provide any essential new information or views on their circumstances beyond the information and views already relied upon in connection with their request to reopen their asylum proceedings, and that the Board 6 7 6 In this connection, the State party refers to paragraphs 1 and 5 of the Committee’s general comment No. 6 (1982) on the right to life. See, for example, communication No. 2007/2010, J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2.