CCPR/C/112/D/2126/2011 majority’s conclusion that the State party failed to refute the author’s claim that he is facing imminent deportation and that “the only reason that that had not been done was the Committee’s request for interim measures” (see para. 10.3. of the Views). Rather, we regard the author’s claim of a risk of imminent deportation to be unsubstantiated by the information in the case file, which points in its entirety towards the opposite conclusion – namely, that the State party is attempting to find ways to regularize the status of the author in the Russian Federation. 6. Thus, although the author’s presence in the Russian Federation is currently precarious, as he has been unwilling or unable to follow the procedures for regularizing his legal status, we are unable to conclude that there is at present a “real risk” 18 that he would be deported to Afghanistan (and be exposed there to irreparable harm). As a result, we are of the view that he does not yet qualify as a “victim” of a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, and that the communication should therefore have been declared inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 7. Should the State party reach a new decision to actually deport the author, such a decision would be governed by the provisions of article 7 and 13 of the Covenant, and the State party would then be required to provide the author with the opportunity to challenge the decision before domestic legal mechanisms, as well before international legal mechanisms, including this Committee. 18 14 See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12.