CCPR/C/119/D/2293/2013 5.2 The authors reiterate their claims regarding the importance of G’s testimony and state that G did not appear of his own volition because he was reluctant to do so, given his possible involvement in certain problems that had arisen in China in February 2008. 5.3 The Refugee Appeals Board is not a court and lacks many of the attributes of a court. Its composition and procedures raise fair-trial issues. The alleged inconsistencies raised by the Board concerning the authors’ statements are not convincing. The authors provided coherent explanations of the relevant facts. It is not suspicious that the authors contacted the Chinese embassy in Denmark in 2009 and 2010 to have their expired passports renewed. The Chinese authorities already knew they were in Denmark and would in any case need to wait for the authors to return to China in order to punish them. 5.4 On 24 October 2012, D was charged for staying in Denmark unlawfully and detained. On 26 October, the authors’ asylum application was denied. On 29 October, the charges against D were dropped because it had been determined that, on 24 October, he had in fact been lawfully present in Denmark. On 27 January 2014, D received compensation from the State party for wrongful detention. Issues and proceedings before the Committee 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined and has not been examined under any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they have exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the authors’ claims that they would face ill-treatment and imprisonment if they were removed to China, owing to their association with Falun Gong literature that they had given to E’s parents, who were subsequently arrested. The Committee also notes the authors’ claim that a material witness, G, was not allowed to testify before the Refugee Appeals Board to corroborate certain elements of the authors’ claims. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s observations that the authors’ claims under articles 7 and 26 are unsubstantiated, and that article 14 does not apply to asylum proceedings. 6.5 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation 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 in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 3 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.4 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.5 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in 3 4 5 See communication No. 2357/2014, A. v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 March 2016, para. 7.4. See, inter alia, communication No. 2291/2013, A. and B. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 13 July 2016, para. 8.3. See, inter alia, ibid.; and communications No. 2474/2014, X v. Norway, Views adopted on 5 November 2015; para. 7.3; and No. 2366/2014, X. v. Canada, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 9.3. 5