CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 details and documentary evidence regarding her personal risk of facing death or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and therefore finds this part of the communication admissible.14 9.6 With regard to the author’s claims under articles 9 (1) and 26 of the Covenant, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that its non-refoulement obligations do not extend to potential breaches of these provisions, and that these claims are therefore inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee considers that the author has not clearly articulated how her removal to Bangladesh would violate the State party’s obligations under these articles. In particular, she has not alleged facts that indicate that she would be arbitrarily detained or subjected to discrimination if returned to Bangladesh. The Committee finds that the author has failed to substantiate, for purposes of admissibility, her allegations under articles 9 (1) and 26. Accordingly, the Committee declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 9.7 The Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 (1) and 7 and proceeds to consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she would face ill-treatment or death if she were removed to Bangladesh owing to threats from S., whose friend and two brothers murdered her own brother. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that the domestic decision makers were not persuaded that the author had been personally targeted, or would be targeted if she returned to Bangladesh. The Committee further takes note of the State party’s observation that it is not the Committee’s role to review credibility assessments made by domestic decision makers. 10.3 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation on States parties to the Covenant, 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 has also indicated that the risk must be personal15 and 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.16 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 17 14 15 16 17 See communication No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 8.6. See, inter alia, communication No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.3; and communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2. See X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and communication No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See, inter alia, K. v. Denmark, para. 7.4. 13