CCPR/C/116/D/2060/2011 vast majority of Zimbabweans to obtain or create for himself gainful employment such as to be able to afford private antiretroviral treatment if necessary. 7.3 The Committee recalls that in 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. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal20 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.21 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 22 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case 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. 23 7.4 As to the author’s allegation that his life would be at risk upon return to Zimbabwe owing to his HIV-positive status and the alleged lack of access to medical care and medication, the Committee observes that it is not disputed that medical treatment for persons who are HIV-positive and antiretroviral medications are available in Zimbabwe, through public services or private entities. Nevertheless, the author claims that the services offered are insufficient to address all persons in need of them and that there is a very long waiting list, that the medications are not affordable and that there is little public social support for persons who are HIV-positive. Against this background, the author alleges that he will not be able to obtain immediate access to antiretroviral medications in Zimbabwe or afford to pay for them by himself, since he will be unemployed, and that he has no close relatives in Zimbabwe on whose support he can rely. The Committee observes, however, that the author has provided mainly general information about the economic situation in the country and the difficulties in getting access to medical treatment for HIV and has provided inconsistent information about his family in Zimbabwe, which does not allow it to ascertain the extent to which he can count on family support. Furthermore, he decided, by his own choice, not to undergo any antiretroviral treatment available in the State party until his migration status had become clear. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the author has not shown that his life or physical and mental integrity are at imminent and direct risk as a result of his removal to Zimbabwe and that the State party’s authorities took his health situation into consideration and made the necessary inquiries before implementing the expulsion decision. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s removal to Zimbabwe did not constitute a violation of his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that his removal to Zimbabwe constituted an arbitrary interference with his family life in violation of articles 17 and 23 (1) of the Covenant. In this regard, the Committee recalls that there may be cases in which a 20 21 22 23 See communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2 and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and Committee against Torture, communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; 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. See X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2 and X. v. Sweden, para. 5.18. See, inter alia, communications No. 2474/2014, X. v. Norway, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 7.3 and No. 2366/2014, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, communication No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.4. 13