Advance unedited version CCPR/C/129/D/3106/2018-3122/2018 assessment of the authors’ cases in order to determine whether there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant, if the authors and their families are removed from Angola. According to the State party’s observations, almost two years after initiating proceedings against the authors for their removal from Angola there has been no decision in their case by the National Council for Refugees. The Committee recalls that, in its 2019 concluding observations on the second periodic report of Angola, it expressed concern about reports of mass expulsions of migrants and asylum seekers, including those in need of international protection, without carrying out the necessary individual assessments. 27 7.6 The Committee recalls that States parties should give sufficient weight to the real and personal risk that a person might face if deported and considers that it is incumbent upon the State party to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the authors and their families would face in case of return to Turkey. In the absence of any apparent assessment which takes into due consideration the consequences of the authors’ personal and family situation in their country of origin, the Committee considers that the State party failed to assess the authors’ real, personal and foreseeable risk of returning to Turkey in light of its non-refoulement obligations under article 7 of the Covenant. 7.7 The Committee then notes the authors’ uncontested claim under article 13 of the Covenant that they did not have the opportunity to challenge their deportation decision. The Committee recalls that article 13 of the Covenant provides that “[a]n alien lawfully in the territory of a State Party to the present Covenant may be expelled therefrom only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with law and shall, except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, be allowed to submit the reasons against his expulsion and to have his case reviewed by, and be represented for the purpose before, the competent authority or a person or persons especially designated by the competent authority.” 7.8 The Committee first notes that it is not in dispute that the authors were “lawfully in the territory” of the State party. It then recalls its General Comment No. 15 (1986) on the position of aliens under the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of the States parties to give an alien full facilities for pursuing his or her remedy against expulsion so that this right will in all the circumstances of his or her case be an effective one (para. 10). In the circumstances of the case, the Committee notes that the authors were not informed about the reasons for their expulsion and were not given an effective remedy to challenge their expulsion, to submit reasons against their expulsion and to have their case reviewed by a competent authority. 28 The Committee further notes that, even if the Presidential Decree issued on 3 October 2016 invokes the Angolan Constitution, the State party has not shown that there were compelling reasons of national security to deprive the authors of access to a remedy.29 7.9 Moreover, the Committee notes that the Presidential Decree ordered the expulsion of all Turkish citizens affiliated with the school Colégio Esperança Internacional. In this connection, the Committee recalls its General Comment No. 15 that article 13 of the Covenant entitles each alien to a decision in his or her own case and, hence, article 13 would not be satisfied with laws or decisions providing for collective or mass expulsions (para. 10). Accordingly, the Committee is of the view that the Presidential Decree issued on 3 October 2016 in relation to the authors collectively with no consideration of individual cases and the lack of an effective remedy for the authors to challenge their expulsion, to submit reasons against their expulsion and to have their case reviewed by the competent authority, amount to a violation of article 13 of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the authors’ removal to Turkey, if implemented in the absence of a procedure which guarantees a proper assessment of the real 27 28 29 Concluding observations, para. 39. Giry v. Dominican Republic, Communication no. 193/1985, para. 5.5, and Ahani v. Canada (CCPR/C/80/D/1051/2002), para. 10.8. Hammel v. Madagascar, Communication no. 155/1983, para. 19.2. 9