CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014 purpose of admissibility of his communication”. At the same time, however, the Committee notes the author’s detailed claims regarding the existing risks for him and the information that, due to his past work in fighting drug-related crime, he has been sought by the Taliban, as they are aware that he helped secure the arrest of two Taliban-affiliated drug lords. The Committee further notes the allegations by the author that he was the victim of an abduction attempt and received repeated written and telephone threats, and that his brother was kidnapped and killed, which provide substantial grounds for believing that the author may be in danger of being arbitrarily deprived of his life or subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 7.6 In the light of the above, the Committee considers the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to an examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all of the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the author to Afghanistan amounted to a violation by the State party of its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 8.3 The Committee recalls that, in its general comment No. 31, 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 articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.10 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal11 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.12 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.13 8.4 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the authorities of States parties, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice,14 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.15 10 11 12 13 14 15 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See, for example, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and communication Nos. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See, for example, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and communication No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See, for example, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and X. v. Sweden, para. 5.18. See, inter alia, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; X. v. Sweden, para. 5.18; and communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. See communication Nos. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See also 11