CCPR/C/126/D/2570/2015 would be imprisoned and the conditions of detention would be in breach of articles 7 and 10 (1) and (2) of the Covenant; that he would suffer torture during pretrial detention, in violation of article 7; and that he would be held in indefinitely provisional detention and deprived of the right to a periodic review of the lawfulness of his detention, in breach of article 9 1), (3) and (4). The author also complains that the Italian authorities did not seek any assurances from Ukraine as to his treatment in prison upon his return. 8.6 The Committee 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 a risk exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 32 It follows from the author’s account of the domestic decisions that the Italian Court of Cassation thoroughly assessed the validity of the request for extradition on three occasions and also examined the author’s submissions as to the allegedly relevant human rights issues in Ukraine. The Committee also notes that the author invokes general conditions of detention in Ukraine, which are similar for all other detainees and do not reveal any specific risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated in article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that the information at its disposal demonstrates that the State party took into account all the elements available, including the legal characterization of the alleged crime and the human rights situation in the requesting country. The Committee therefore considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities and with their decision to uphold his extradition, he has not shown that the decisions of the Italian courts were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. The author has equally not sufficiently substantiated his belief that he would suffer torture during pretrial detention or why he would be held indefinitely in provisional detention and deprived of the right to have the lawfulness of his detention reviewed. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the communication is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and declares it inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision will be communicated to the State party and to the author. 32 10 See, for example, Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015), para. 7.3, and Rezaifar v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014), para. 8.3.