CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 4.3 The State party submits that the author has failed to establish a prima facie case for the purpose of admissibility of his communication under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant 5 as he has not sufficiently demonstrated that, if returned to China, he would face a real and personal risk of irreparable harm due to a risk of death penalty, torture or ill-treatment, or deprivation of the possibility to practise his Christian religion. Since it has not been sufficiently established that there are substantial grounds for believing that it would constitute a violation of articles 6 or 7 of the Covenant to return the author and his minor son to China, this part of the communication should be considered inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. 4.4 Concerning the allegations of a violation of article 18 of the Covenant, the State party observes that the author has not sufficiently substantiated either that there are substantial grounds for believing that his freedom of religion would be violated if he is returned to China. Therefore, this part of the communication should be considered inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded. The State party also submits that the author is seeking to apply the obligations under article 18 in an extraterritorial manner, and that Denmark cannot be held responsible for violations of article 18 prospectively committed by another State party outside the territory and jurisdiction of Denmark. The author has made no allegations of a violation of that article based on treatment suffered in Denmark or in an area under its effective control. The State party therefore claims that the Committee lacks jurisdiction over the relevant violation in respect of Denmark and that this part of the communication should be considered inadmissible as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol, or alternatively inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.6 The State party further claims that the Committee has never accepted a complaint on its merits regarding the deportation of a person who feared a risk of a violation of provisions other than articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, whether in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. 7 Therefore, the State party argues that it would not cause such irreparable harm, as contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, to extradite, deport or otherwise remove a person who fears that his or her rights under, for example, article 18 of the Covenant, would be violated by another State party. 4.5 On the merits, the State party contends that the author has not sufficiently established that his return together with his son to China would constitute a violation of articles 6, 7 and 18 of the Covenant. It perceives his communication as a mere reproduction of information already considered by the Board in the context of its decisions of 4 September 2013 and 24 September 2015. However, the author has provided one piece of new information, stating that, in December 2015, he was in contact by telephone with the political organization of which he had purportedly been a member. 4.6 The State party submits that the Board considered, in its examination of the author’s application for asylum, whether the author’s statements were coherent, likely and consistent. Based on the overall assessment of the author’s statements and background materials, the Board found that the author had failed to render it probable that his political and religious activities in China and Denmark had made him a high-profile individual to such extent that he had attracted the attention of the Chinese authorities in a manner that would justify 5 6 7 The State party refers to the Committee’s communication No. 1302/2004, Khan v. Canada (CCPR/C/87/D/1302/2004), para. 5.4, in which the Committee considered that the author had failed to adduce sufficient evidence, and where the asylum application had been rejected by the immigration authorities on the basis of lack of credibility and implausibility of the author’s testimony. The State party refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights which has clearly stressed the exceptional character of extraterritorial protection of rights contained in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (see European Court of Human Rights, Soering v. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (application No. 14038/88), judgment of 7 July 1989, para. 88; F. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 17341/03), decision of 22 June 2004, page 12; Z. and T. v. the United Kingdom (application No. 27034/05), decision of 28 February 2006, page 7). The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of legal obligations under the Covenant, para. 12. 5