Advance unedited version CCPR/C/132/D/2651/2015 people in Ethiopia, her father’s torture and death because of his activities for the OLF, her own OLF activities in Sudan, the interrogations of her mother, her lack of family protection and her young age when she left Ethiopia. She has additionally argued that the State party has accepted her account of what happened to her, and that UNHCR and the Italian authorities have recognised her as a refugee. The Committee considers that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated her allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. In light of the above, the Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it raises issues under articles 6 and 7 and proceeds to its 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 required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed 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 where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of an irreparable harm, such as those contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 14 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal, with a high threshold for establishing substantial grounds for the existence of a real risk of irreparable harm.15 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and 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. 16 10.3 The Committee notes the information according to which the State party’s authorities do not have the intention to remove the author and her son to Italy, as first country of asylum, but to Ethiopia as her country of origin. The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the author’s claims are not sufficiently substantiated to show risk of death and torture, if the author and her son are returned to Ethiopia. The State party claims that the author was able to stay in Ethiopia for three weeks after her father’s death in 2003, that several members of her family, including her mother, were able to live in Ethiopia for a long time. The State party further claims that the author’s activities for the OLF must be considered as less prominent and that she herself was not involved in the OLF activities while residing in Ethiopia. Regarding the author’s OLF activities in Sudan, the State party claims that she was a cleaner and working in a cafeteria, that her financial contributions were small and that her activities for the OLF were only singing, cooking and receiving tuition. While the State party acknowledges concerns about human rights violations in Ethiopia, including against actual and suspected dissidents in the Oromia region, it submits it cannot accept that the mere contact or affiliation with the Oromo people or involvement in its struggle would justify granting asylum. The State party submits that the findings of domestic authorities must be given considerable weight, and that the author benefited from due process guarantees, but did not provide any new, specific details about her situation and that the communication does not identify any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factors that the authorities failed to properly consider. 10.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, if returned to Ethiopia, she and her son face risk of torture and death due to the activities of her family and herself. The author claims that her father was an outspoken leader of the OLF who was tortured and died in prison when she was young because of his activities for the OLF. , She claims that it is also due to these events and subsequent threats that, not only her, but her siblings and her mother 14 15 16 Para. 12, General Comment 31. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; A.R.J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996), Para. 6.6; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), Para. 5.18. 9