CCPR/C/118/D/2115/2011 Committee therefore considers that the author’s claim under article 14 is inadmissible ratione materiae pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 9.6 With regard to the author’s claims under article 13, the Committee also takes note of the State party’s arguments that the author’s asylum proceedings were conducted in conformity with the law; that he was able to submit evidence and clarify his statements; that the Refugee Appeals Board is an independent, expert board of a quasi-judicial nature, whose Chairman is a judge, and before which the applicant is represented by counsel; and that the Board is under obligation to bring out the facts and make objectively correct decisions. The Committee observes that the author was afforded an opportunity to submit and challenge evidence concerning his removal and that the author took the opportunity, under domestic law, to have his asylum application examined by the Danish Immigration Service and reviewed by the Refugee Appeals Board. Consequently, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated his claim for purposes of admissibility and that this part of the communication must therefore be declared inadmissible in accordance with article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.7 The Committee notes the author’s claims under articles 26 of the Covenant that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board and its procedure constitute discrimination against asylum seekers, since decisions by administrative bodies, except those taken by the Board, can be appealed before courts pursuant to the State party’s law. The Committee, however, considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims under article 26 and declares this part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.8 The Committee notes that the author’s allegation under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, that if returned to Iraq, he would be at risk of being killed or tortured as a result of his alleged past membership to the Iraqi Nation Party, the attacks he allegedly suffered prior to his departure in Iraq by political opponents, and the failure of the Iraqi authorities to provide him with protection. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 are not substantiated. 9.9 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 the Committee 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 and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 10 The Committee further 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 or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, 11 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or to a denial of justice.12 9.10 In the present case, the Committee observes that the author’s claims rely mainly on the alleged lack of assessment by the authorities of the documentary evidence submitted by him in the asylum proceedings, in particular, the photographs that show a bombed house 10 11 12 See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and communications No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communication No. 1957/2010, Z.H. v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, Z.H. v. Australia and communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. 9