CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that they would face ill-treatment or death if they were removed to Pakistan due to threats they received because they are Ahmadis; and that the government authorities in Pakistan would not be able to shield them from persecution, as the Ahmadi religion is criminalized under domestic law. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations, inter alia, that there is no evidence indicating that the authors were particularly singled out in Pakistan and that the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board was well founded and based on a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence in the case and on current background material on the situation of Ahmadis in Pakistan. 8.3 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 in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.11 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal12 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.13 The Committee recalls 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.14 8.4 The Committee takes note that the State party’s authorities, after examining the evidence provided by the authors in their asylum application, including interviews and oral hearings, found that the authors had not shown that they would be at a personal risk of harm upon return to Pakistan. The Committee notes in particular that the Refugee Appeals Board accepted the authors’ allegations that they had received threatening letters, beginning in June 2012, and that unknown individuals had painted a cross on the wall of their house around the same time. The Board found that the situation that the authors risk facing was not so severe as to indicate a well-founded fear of persecution by authorities or private individuals as a result of their religious beliefs. It observed that there were between 2 and 4 million Ahmadis in Pakistan, and that Pakistani legislation had significantly restricted their ability to practise their faith. As a result, Ahmadis were often threatened and harassed by unspecified other groups. However, the Board found that the authors had not substantiated their claim that they would face a specific and individualized risk of persecution or abuse in Pakistan. The persecution endured by the authors had been of “limited severity”, as they had only been subjected to threats for a short period of time before their departure. Moreover, these anonymous threats were of a nature similar to the nature of anonymous threats to which many Ahmadis had been subjected. The Board also 11 12 13 14 8 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See, inter alia, communications No. 2393/2014, K v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 7.3; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2; and No. 2007/2010, J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. See communications No. 2007/2010, J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See, inter alia, communications No. 2327/2014, Y v. Canada, Views adopted on 10 March 2016, para. 10.3; and No. 2474/2014, X v. Norway, Views adopted on 5 November 2015, para. 7.4.