CCPR/C/112/D/2126/2011 under article 7 of the Covenant by the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol, declares that claim admissible and proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 The Committee has taken note of the author’s submission that, if returned to Afghanistan, being a former combatant of the pro-Soviet regime who fought against the mujahideen, he would be at serious risk of a vigilante attack by the Taliban fighters; that having spent 20 years outside the country he had no connections left there, and would be in a situation of total absence of a support network and exposed to attacks; and that the area from which he originated has been reported to be increasingly outside of the reach of the central government and in the hands of the Taliban. 11.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm.15 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the judicial authorities of the States parties to the Covenant to assess the facts in such cases, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.16 11.4 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that, if returned to Afghanistan, being a former combatant of the pro-Soviet regime who fought against the mujahideen, he would be at serious risk of a vigilante attack by the Taliban fighters and that the fact that he has spent more than 20 years in the Russian Federation would increase the risk to his life. The Committee considers that the author’s allegations suggest that he is at real and personal risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee observes that the material before it shows that, when the author’s claims were considered by the State party’s authorities, much weight was given to the fact that the domestic legislation regulating refugee status did not apply to him and that it appears that in the proceedings related to his application for temporary asylum inadequate consideration was given to the specific rights of the author under the Covenant. 17 The Committee observes that the State party in its submissions merely states that he had left his home country for economic reasons and does not assess the current risk of torture for the author should he be returned to Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the deference given to the immigration authorities to assess the evidence before them, the Committee considers that further analysis should be carried out in the present case. In the absence of a submission from the State party demonstrating that a thorough assessment would be conducted of his claims that he might be subjected to torture if forcibly returned to Afghanistan, the Committee considers that a deportation order issued and enforced against the author would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 15 16 17 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States Parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See general comments No. 6 (1982) on article 6: the right to life; and No. 20 (1992) on article 7: prohibition of torture, or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; and, for example, communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.2; No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada, Views adopted on 18 March 2010, para. 8.2. See for example communication No. 1544/2007, Hamida v. Canada (see footnote 18), paras. 8.3–8.4 and 8.6. 11