CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 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 recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that authors must avail themselves of all domestic remedies in order to fulfil the requirement of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, in so far as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to the author.13 The Committee has noted that the author unsuccessfully appealed the decision to refuse asylum of the Danish Immigration Services to the Refugee Appeals Board and that the State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claim with respect to article 7 of the Covenant should be held inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. However, the Committee considers that the author has adequately explained the reasons for which he fears that forcible return to Sri Lanka would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that, for the purposes of admissibility, the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under article 7 with plausible arguments in support thereof. 6.5 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that, under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the communication is admissible in so far as it raises issues relating to article 7 of the Covenant. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the present 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. 7.2 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 article 7 of the Covenant.14 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal15 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm 13 14 15 See communications No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 7.4, and No. 1003/2001, P.L. v. Germany, inadmissibility decision adopted on 22 October 2003, para. 6.5. See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. Communications No. 2007/2010, J.J.M. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2, and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See also Committee against Torture, communications No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; and No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010. 7