CCPR/C/116/D/2198/2012 assessment conducted by the State party, 7 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.8 5.5 In the light of the above and taking into account the information provided by the author, the Committee observes that the author has not convincingly identified any irregularity in the decision-making process, or provided sufficient explanation as to why the decisions of the State party’s authorities were clearly arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. In this connection, the Committee notes that the material before it does not permit it to conclude that the examination by the State party’s authorities, including the courts, of the author’s claim concerning his fears and risks upon return to Belarus suffered from any such defects. 5.6 In addition, the Committee is of the view that there are inconsistencies in the author’s story that undermine the credibility of his claim that he would be at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment by the authorities upon return to Belarus. The author has not submitted any objective evidence to substantiate his present claim. In particular, he has not provided any details about the lack of adequate medical assistance or about the allegedly inhuman and degrading prison conditions to which he would be subjected. During his extradition and asylum proceedings, the author claimed that he was persecuted by the authorities of Belarus because of his political opinion, religion and social status. However, he has not provided any details about his persecution on these grounds. In this regard, the Committee observes that, during his asylum proceedings, the author refused to provide any details concerning his political activities. Moreover, despite the alleged persecution in Belarus, the author applied for asylum only in September 2011, 10 years after his arrival in the State party in September 2001. In addition, from 2001 until 2011, the author could freely visit his relatives, medical doctors and other persons in Belarus without experiencing any problems with the authorities of Belarus. 5.7 Finally, with regard to the author’s remaining claims that, by extraditing him to Belarus, the State party would also breach his rights under articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the author has not provided sufficient details and substantiation of his claims under these provisions of the Covenant. 5.8 In these circumstances, and in the absence of any other pertinent information on file, while not underestimating the concerns that may legitimately be expressed with respect to the general human rights situation in Belarus, the Committee concludes that, in the present case, the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims for purposes of admissibility, and, accordingly, declares the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6. The Human Rights Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; That the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional (b) That the present decision shall be communicated to the State party and to the author. 7 8 6 See, for example, communications No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3; and No. 2344/2014, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 8.4. See, for example, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, para. 8.4.