CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011 the author’s claims with respect to return to Senegal, and therefore his claims under the Covenant. The State party further submits that judicial review of the RRT decision remains an available remedy which the author should exhaust prior to seeking the Committee’s consideration of his claims under the Covenant. 4.6 The State party submits that, as the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under articles 6, paragraph 1, and 7 of the Covenant, those claims should be declared inadmissible by the Committee, in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The State party stresses, in particular, that the author failed to adduce sufficient evidence with respect to his claims that he is at risk of harm by the Mourides Brotherhood or family members who are also members of the Mourides Brotherhood, because the police in Senegal cannot, or will not protect him. The State party is of the view that, beyond the evidence which was considered during domestic proceedings, the author has failed to adduce any reliable evidence which would support his claim that he would be unable to avail himself of adequate State protection. 4.7 The State party recalls that, after examining all the available evidence, RRT accepted the following: (a) the author converted to Christianity on 13 November 1994; (b) the author comes from a devout Muslim family which is part of the Mourides Brotherhood; (c) the author and his family lived in Touba, a predominantly Muslim town; (d) the author’s family opposed his conversion to Christianity, and in November 1994, some of his family members and neighbours attacked him and kept him at home for three days without food; (e) members of the author’s family told him that the Mourides Brotherhood would kill him or place a fatwa on his head; (f) the author ran away from Touba to the town of Kaolack, and was located by two of his brothers and other Mourides Brotherhood members, and beaten up; (g) the author lived in South Africa for 10 years, then returned to Senegal, and was given his former job back, but within a short time, he heard that his family was looking for him, which prompted him to return to South Africa and then to go to Australia; (h) the author fears harm from his family and associates of his family; (i) the author’s family and associates belong to the Mourides Brotherhood; (j) the author’s family and their associates wish to cause him harm because of his conversion to Christianity, but that is not related to their membership to the Mourides Brotherhood; (k) the author’s family and their associates assaulted the author on two occasions because he had converted to Christianity, they were still looking for him when he returned to Senegal after 10 years in South Africa, and the author’s family is still angry, as indicated in a letter from the family provided at the RRT hearing; (l) the author’s religion is the essential and significant reason for persecution by his family and their associates; and (m) the author was assaulted by his family and a small number of associates because of a personal vendetta against the author, as a result of his conversion to Christianity. 4.8 The State party stresses that, in its decision, RRT made no explicit findings with respect to the author’s claims that he had sought assistance from the police on one occasion and had been told that they were unable to assist him because it was a family matter and the Mourides Brotherhood was too powerful; and that he would not be safe anywhere in Senegal because of the presence of a large family, which would find him wherever he went. The State party further notes that RRT did not accept that the Mourides Brotherhood would kill the author or would have threatened to do so, or that a fatwa had been placed on his head; the author’s claims that he had a well-founded fear of harm from the Mourides Brotherhood; or that Senegal was unable or unwilling to protect him from persecution. 4.9 The State party notes that the author submitted that he did not report the first incident of assault to the police, but only reported the second assault. The State party recalls that, upon reporting the second incident, the author claims that he was informed by a senior police officer that there was nothing they could do because it was a family matter and “the Mourides are too powerful in Touba city”. According to the State party, even if the author’s 6