CCPR/C/119/D/2602/2015 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the rights protected under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant will be violated with respect to him and his family in case of their forced return to Albania as they will be confined to home against their will, will live in isolation and will be banned from leaving the country for five years. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant is inadmissible both ratione loci and ratione materiae because these provisions do not have extraterritorial application and the State party cannot therefore be held responsible for their violation if committed outside of its territory and jurisdiction by another State. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the author has failed to substantiate his claims, including by referring to the competent authorities in Albania. The Committee notes that the author has not provided any further information or evidence on how his and his family’s rights under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant have been or would be violated by the State party through their removal to Albania in a manner that would give rise to irreparable harm such as that contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.6 In view of the particular circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the author’s claims under articles 12 and 17 of the Covenant are incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant, and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee further notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author’s claims under article 6 of the Covenant are manifestly ill-founded. However, the Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has explained in sufficient detail why his and his family’s safety could be put at risk upon return to Albania. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under article 6 of the Covenant and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 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. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that as a male member of the H. family, which has been involved in an ongoing violent blood feud since 1992 with three other Albanian families, he would risk persecution and death if he were forcibly returned to Albania. The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that the Board accepted as fact that the author was involved in a conflict involving four families in Albania but could not accept the author’s statement about the extent of the conflict and that he was personally threatened by it. The Board pointed out that the author’s wife had no separate grounds for asylum. 7.3 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. 7 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 8 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm 6 7 8 8 See general comment No. 31, para. 12. Ibid. See, inter alia, communications No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.3, and No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2.