CCPR/C/127/D/2484/2014 persecuted. The author therefore submits that his initial submissions and recent evidence clearly support the fact that he fits a profile of individuals who have been persecuted in the past and at present. The author’s wife also went to see a Member of Parliament, who provided a letter that supports the author’s request for protection in Canada, also stating that he had been “unofficially interrogated and detained on many occasions” but had been released when the Member of Parliament got involved. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s submission that the communication should be declared inadmissible under article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol. The State party submits that the author first failed to file a request for deferral of his removal and subsequently failed to file an application for a pre-removal risk assessment. The Committee notes, however, that the author filed a request for deferral which was rejected on 25 November 2014 and an application for a pre-removal risk assessment, which was rejected on 17 March 2016. Accordingly, the Committee finds that it is not prevented by the requirements of article 5, paragraph 2 (b), of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations under article 9 (1) are incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant. In that connection, it notes that the author has not provided any information, evidence or explanation as to how his rights under article 9 (1) would be violated by the State party through his removal to Sri Lanka in a manner that would pose a substantial risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 10 The Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant are insufficiently substantiated. However, the Committee is of the view that, for purposes of admissibility, the complainant has provided sufficient information as to the risk of irreparable harm that he would allegedly face if he was returned to Sri Lanka. Accordingly, the Committee declares the claim admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 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. 9.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, 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 article 7 of the Covenant (para. 12). 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. 11 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.12 10 11 12 See N.D.J.M.D. v. Canada (CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014). See 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. Ibid. 7