CCPR/C/127/D/2484/2014 9.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, 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 such a risk exists. 13 9.4 The Committee notes the author’s contention that his removal to Sri Lanka would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, owing to the fact that he worked as a field worker for an NGO assisting Tamils displaced during the conflict. Furthermore, the author collected information about sexual violence against women in detention and, owing to his work, he received threats on several occasions from Sri Lankan soldiers. His family have continued to receive threats and upon return, the author will be identified as a failed refugee claimant. The author further provided a notice requesting him to appear before the police. 9.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations of risk have been thoroughly assessed by several State party decision makers in the framework of the Refugee Protection Division and pre-removal risk assessment procedures, which determined that the author had failed to substantiate his allegations. Specifically, the State party submits that the author has no high profile, was not actively critical of the Government and that the NGO he worked for, the Sewalanka Foundation, operated with the approval of the Government. The State party also submits that the author’s allegations are not credible since he could not sufficiently explain why he failed to mention his allegation that two police officers had followed him everywhere prior to his departure (para. 4.5 above) or that he was “unofficially” interrogated and detained on several occasions (para. 7.2 above). The State party further challenges the reports on conditions in Sri Lanka, claiming that they mostly reflect conditions during the conflict, which ended in May 2009. 9.6 The Committee notes that the State party’s authorities, after examining the evidence provided by the author and reports by States and non-governmental organizations on the situation of Tamils in Sri Lanka at the time of the examination of his request, rejected his application since they considered that the author had failed to substantiate the real risk he would be exposed to if removed to Sri Lanka, because he had failed to provide reliable evidence to corroborate his account and because being a field worker for a registered NGO, a Tamil from the north and a failed asylum seeker would not, in itself, expose him to a real and personal risk. The Committee considers that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. The Committee finds that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, the facts before it do not allow it to conclude that the assessment of the facts by the State party’s authorities and the evidence they provided were clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author would face a personal and real risk of treatment contrary to articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant if he were to be removed to Sri Lanka. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the removal of the author to Sri Lanka would not violate his rights under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 13 8 See Pillai et al. v. Canada, (CCPR/C/101/D/1763/2008), para. 11.4, and Lin v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3.