CCPR/C/114/D/2288/2013 18, 26 and 27, in conjunction with articles 6 and 7, as well as articles 3 and 13 of the Covenant, for purposes of admissibility. It concludes that that part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.7 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 its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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 when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the person, such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.8 The Committee has also established that the risk must be personal9 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.10 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claims under article 6 and 7 of the Covenant that, if returned to Nigeria she would be at risk of being killed or tortured by Mr. P.B. or Ms. B.O. or their relatives or persons linked to the human trafficking network in Nigeria. To substantiate her allegations, the author refers to the fact that: she was a victim of human trafficking and was forced to work as a prostitute in Denmark; she testified against her traffickers in criminal proceedings in a Danish court; and she was allegedly threatened by her traffickers and a close relative of one of them, who lives in Nigeria. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that, based on the author’s allegations, she was threatened by Mr. P.B.’s brother only once; there does not seem to be evidence of any other threat, even after the release of Mr. P.B. and Ms. B.O. from prison in March 2011; the author’s allegations about an alleged risk of harm by persons linked to the human trafficking network is vague and lacks details; and reports from States and NGOs indicate that the Nigerian authorities are actively fighting against human trafficking and its consequences, including for female victims of human trafficking who have returned and taken up residence in Nigeria. 7.4 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, in which it states that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether the risk of harm on return to one’s country of origin exists, 8 9 10 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. 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, paras. 7.1 and 7.2; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. 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 9