CCPR/C/116/D/2193/2012 according to the information provided by counsel on 17 March 2015, as well as later by the State party in its further observations of 10 February 2016, the author has in fact been extradited to Kyrgyzstan. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining this part of the communication, raising issues under article 7 of the Covenant, for purposes of admissibility, and proceeds with its 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 under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that if the Russian Federation proceeded with his extradition, it would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 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 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 10 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.11 In making this assessment, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.12 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence, according to which considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party13 and that it is generally for organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.14 10.4 The Committee observes that the author’s claims that he would be subjected to torture if extradited to Kyrgyzstan were examined by the State party’s Federal Migration Service in the course of the asylum proceedings and by the Russian courts in the course of the extradition proceedings, which found his claims that he would face a real, foreseeable and personal risk of being subjected to torture in Kyrgyzstan unfounded. The Committee further notes that most of the evidence presented by the author relates to the general human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan and not to his specific case. In this connection, the Committee observes that the author claims that he was tortured in Kyrgyzstan in March 2010 and that as a result he received medical treatment in Grozny. The author has submitted to the Committee a copy of an excerpt from his medical record concerning his treatment in Grozny, which was issued on 31 December 2011, in other words almost two 10 11 12 13 14 See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; 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; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See for example communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. See, for example, communications No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3; No. 2344/2014, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 8.4. See, for example, communication No.2344/2014, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 8.4. 11