CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 return to Sri Lanka because her younger brother had allegedly been a member of LTTE — a ground that was also untrue; (c) fear of reprisals from her former husband; and (d) fear of being persecuted by the Sri Lankan authorities because of her and her family’s alleged affiliation with LTTE. The Committee notes the State party’s submission that no substantial new information was provided in the author’s communication, and that the author has continually changed and elaborated on her statements to the Danish authorities about her and her family’s affiliation with LTTE, which weakens the author’s general credibility. The Committee further notes that the author lived in Switzerland from 2001 to 2011; that she requested asylum in Switzerland and her application was rejected; and that she admitted to the Swiss asylum authorities that she had never been affiliated with LTTE in any way and had never personally experienced any conflicts or problems with the Sri Lankan authorities. 8.4 The Committee recalls 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 where 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 29 and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.30 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists, 31 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.32 8.5 The Committee notes in particular the Board’s findings of 10 January 2014 and 22 June 2015 that, regardless of any pressure exerted on the author by her former husband, it appeared from the information available that the author had made false statements about her grounds for seeking asylum throughout the asylum proceedings, and that the new grounds for asylum asserted by the author could therefore not be considered as facts. The Board noted, for example, that the author’s statement to the Danish Immigration Service in 2013 claiming that she had been granted residence in Switzerland because of her brother’s affiliation with LTTE was not true. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that, at both interviews conducted by the Swiss authorities in 2001, the author stated that she had travelled to Switzerland with the sole purpose of marrying her intended spouse, who was living in Switzerland. The Board contrasted the information provided by the author to the Danish authorities claiming that she and her family had been affiliated with LTTE for years, and that their conflicts with the Sri Lankan authorities had been going on for years, with the information she provided to the Swiss authorities on 27 January 2014. It appears, therefore, that the author did not contend before the Swiss authorities that she and her family were affiliated with LTTE, nor that, for that reason, she and her family had a conflict with the Sri Lankan authorities; instead, she only referred to her fear of abuse by her former husband, which she did not mention to the Board at the hearing of 20 June 2013. 8.6 The Committee further notes that, in its decision of 10 January 2014, the Board observed that the author could seek protection against her former husband from the Sri Lankan authorities, and that she had not rendered it probable that the authorities would not be able to provide her with such protection. In its decision of 22 June 2015, the Board considered that the current background material on Sri Lanka provided no specific basis for assuming that Tamils who had not themselves had any affiliation with LTTE and whose family members had not been high-profile members of LTTE would risk persecution or abuse justifying asylum merely as a consequence of their ethnicity. It also considered that 29 30 31 32 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. See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and communication No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, ibid. and communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. 13