CCPR/C/114/D/2280/2013 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claims under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. The Committee observes that the author has explained the reasons why he feared being returned to Sri Lanka, based mainly on the events he went through prior to his departure from Sri Lanka, together with his personal circumstances as a Tamil and a failed asylum seeker. The Committee also notes that the author has provided documentary evidence in support of his claims, which should be considered on the merits. The Committee therefore finds this part of the communication admissible. 6.5 The Committee notes the author’s allegations under article 9 (1) of the Covenant that he would be at risk of arbitrary detention upon return to Sri Lanka. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that its non-refoulement obligations do not extend to a potential breach of this provision. The Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for the purpose of admissibility, how this claim would raise a separate issue from his claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee considers that he has failed to sufficiently substantiate this claim for the purpose of admissibility and concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.6 The Committee declares the communication admissible in so far as it appears to raise issues under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to their consideration on the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered this communication in the light of all the information received, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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 (para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal,19 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.20 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 21 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claims that, if he were returned to Sri Lanka, he would face a risk of persecution as a young Tamil from northern Sri Lanka with perceived links to LTTE and as a failed asylum seeker; and that the State party’s authorities arbitrarily ignored documentary evidence that supported his claims of persecution and did not give sufficient weight to the fact that prior to his departure from his country of origin he was 19 20 21 See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006, para. 7.2; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010, para. 7.3; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010, para. 7.2; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communications No. 2007/2010, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, para. 5.18. 11