CCPR/C/122/D/2753/2016 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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. 7.3 The Committee notes that the author appealed unsuccessfully against the rejection of his asylum claim before the Danish Refugee Appeals Board, that his request for residence permits under section 9 (c) (3) (ii) of the Aliens Act was rejected by the Ministry of Justice, and that the request to have his asylum case reopened was rejected by the Danish Refugee Appeals Board on 24 September 2015. In that connection, the Committee notes that the State party has not objected to the admissibility of the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol as regards exhaustion of domestic remedies. Since the decisions of the Board cannot be appealed, no further remedies are available to the author. Accordingly, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.4 Concerning the author’s claim under article 18 that he would be deprived of the possibility to practise his Christian religion if returned to China, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims are insufficiently substantiated. It further notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under article 18 is inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae as incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant since article 18 does not have extraterritorial application, and because the author’s allegations of a violation of this provision do not rest on any treatment that he has suffered in Denmark, but rather on consequences that he would allegedly suffer if returned to China. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant entails an obligation for States parties not to deport a person from their territory, where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, in the country to which removal is to be effected. 12 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author’s communication falls short of substantiating how his rights under article 18 would be violated by the State party by removing him to China in a manner that would pose a substantial risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. This part of the communication is therefore inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.13 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant that, if he were removed to China, he would be at risk of being sentenced to a death penalty, or subjected to torture or ill-treatment for his activities in support of the multiparty democracy movement, because of which he would face politically motivated charges. The Committee also takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 should be held inadmissible for lack of substantiation. However, the Committee considers that the author has adequately explained the reasons why he fears that his forcible return to China would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant for him and his minor, autistic son. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that this part of the communication, raising issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 7.6 The Committee declares the communication admissible, insofar as it appears to raise issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds with its consideration on the merits. 12 13 See general comment No. 31, para. 12. See e.g. communications No. 2195/2012, Ch.H.O. v. Canada (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.5., and No. 2613/2015, Contreras v. Canada (CCPR/C/119/D/2613/2015), para. 7.5. See also Khan v. Canada (footnote 5 above), para. 5.6. 11