CCPR/C/127/D/2276/2013 7.6 The Committee further takes note of the author’s claims, for which he has not referred to any specific article of the Covenant, that he has not been afforded a fair opportunity to contest the merits of the negative decision of the Refugee Protection Division. The Committee also notes that the author availed himself of the opportunity to apply for a judicial review of the negative decision before the Federal Court, that he subsequently made a pre-removal risk assessment application and an application for judicial review of the negative pre-removal risk assessment decision before the Federal Court. It notes the State party’s argument that the author has not provided any evidence to substantiate that this domestic remedial avenue was ineffective or unfair and also notes its argument that the system of judicial review by the Federal Court provides for a review by the Court of both the law and the facts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate these allegations for the purpose of admissibility and therefore considers this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 The Committee considers, however, that the author has sufficiently substantiated the claims that he would risk persecution in Sri Lanka owing to his past experience of illtreatment, his profile as a young Tamil from the north of the country and the status of failed asylum seeker, under articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, for purposes of admissibility. It therefore declares the communication admissible under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, in which 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. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that the risk must be personal and also recalls that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 8.3 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence in which it has stated that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether a real risk of irreparable harm exists, unless it can be established that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.7 8.4 In the present case, the Committee notes the author’s claims that if he were returned to Sri Lanka, he would face a risk of persecution as a young Tamil from northern Sri Lanka with perceived links to LTTE, especially because of his scars, his previous ill-treatment by Sri Lankan security forces and his status as a failed asylum seeker. The Committee notes the State party’s arguments that its authorities carried out a thorough review of the author’s claims; that country reports indicate that not all young Tamil males from northern Sri Lanka face a real and personal risk of persecution by the authorities, but only those who are suspected of having links to LTTE; and that the author has not demonstrated that he is a person who would be suspected of having concrete links with LTTE or a person who would otherwise be of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities. 8.5 The Committee notes that the author’s claims focus mainly on the assessment of the country reports carried out by the State party authorities, arguing that the authorities arrived at an erroneous conclusion based on those reports. The Committee observes that reports on the human rights situation in Sri Lanka indicate that despite the changes that have taken place, human rights violations, including torture, continue to exist; and that, inter alia, 7 See, for example, K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.4; and Z.H. v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. 9