CCPR/C/122/D/2292/2013 observes that the author has explained that he feared returning to Egypt owing to his sexual orientation and his conversion from Islam to Christianity. The Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations. 45 The Committee therefore declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 (1) and 7 and proceeds to consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his expulsion to Egypt would constitute an attack on his liberty, security and life on account of his sexual orientation and his conversion from Islam to Christianity. He further claims that the State party has not reasonably assessed the risk inherent in his removal. 10.3 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of 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 personal 46 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.47 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. 48 10.4 The Committee notes the author’s statements regarding his sexual orientation, his conversion from Islam to Christianity and the alleged risk of persecution that he may face from his family and the authorities should he be returned to Egypt. The Committee also takes note of the documents cited by the author in support of his allegations, which highlight the serious human rights abuses committed against homosexuals and converts to Christianity in Egypt. The Committee observes, however, that the author has not provided any specific argument that would lead to the conclusion that he would be at real and personal risk if he were to return and that the applications filed and arguments submitted by the author were thoroughly examined by the State party’s authorities in the context of the consideration and subsequent reconsideration of his application for a pre-removal risk assessment. All the authorities identified contradictory and implausible elements in the author’s statements. In particular, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author has failed to substantiate or convincingly explain why he is unable to provide proof of the full identity of his alleged partner or of his partner’s death in Egypt. It also notes the arguments of the State party that the medical letter submitted by the author documenting the injuries and scars he sustained does not explain the doctor’s reasons for stating that they resulted from the attack in 2012 (see para. 6.14). The Committee notes that the author has not convincingly demonstrated his family ties with the persons he claims are his sister and his brother-in-law, nor that they have denounced him to the State authorities, as he claims. Following the analysis of the case file, the Canadian authorities came to the conclusion that the author’s statements lacked credibility and that there was nothing more than a “mere possibility” that he would be persecuted if returned to Egypt. 10.5 The Committee notes that, although the author contests the assessment and findings of the Canadian authorities as to the risk of harm he faces in Egypt, he has not presented any evidence to sufficiently substantiate his allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the 45 46 47 48 14 See Biao Lin v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 8.6. See K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.3; P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.2; and X. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2. See X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and X. v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. See, for example, K. v. Denmark, para. 7.4. GE.18-09612