CCPR/C/132/D/3188/2018 Advance unedited version 6.4 Finally, the Committee notes the State party’s challenge to admissibility on the grounds that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are of a general nature and that he has not substantiated his claim that the decision of R.A.B. suffered from any procedural irregularity such as to imply a manifest error. It further notes the author’s assertion that the State party failed in its procedural obligation to duly consider all the evidence in his case, dismissing all claims on the basis of a negative credibility finding, without considering objective evidence, the existence or authenticity of which was not challenged, such as his tattoos, and its failure to provide reasoning for any assessment that was carried out, or conclusion reached, in particular the absence of reasons for the refusal to hear oral testimony that goes to the substance of one of his primary claims. The Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 6.5 . The Committee notes that the author has implicitly invoked article 18, in addition to his claims under articles 6 and 7. The Committee further notes however, that the author does not advance any separate arguments to support this claim. Therefore, the Committee considers that this element of the communication is insufficiently substantiated as a stand alone claim for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares the article 18 claim as inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. However, as this element is inextricably linked to the author’s claims under article 6 and 7, the Committee will proceed to consider the issues raised insofar as they relate to the merits of his claims under articles 6 and 7. 6.6 In light of the above, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7 and proceeds to consideration onthe merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the 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 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.30 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal, with a high threshold for establishing substantial grounds for the existence of such a risk.31 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the country of origin: The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States party to examine the facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.32 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, if returned to Iran he faces routine detention and questioning at the airport and, having left Iran without documents or an exit visa and having evaded military service, he fears extended detention, questioning, being searched and arrested, as a result of his tattoos and therefore apparent conversion, his intelligence profile, as a result of his online and sur place activities, his connection to his mother’s house church and his extra-.marital relationship with the wife of a government official. . He claims he will be forced to recant his faith or face prosecution for apostasy. If his relationship with S is discovered he will also face charges of adultery and proselytizing along with charges for failure to perform military service. He asserts that these factors, taken together, place him at serious risk of ill-treatment during detention and interrogation and he 30 31 32 10 Para. 12, General Comment 31. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; A.R.J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996), Para. 6.6; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), Para. 5.18.