CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013 exists.16 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.17 7.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice,18 and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.19 In this connection, the Committee notes the assessment made by the State party authorities that the author did not face personal risk if returned to Sri Lanka, which is based on the lack of evidence of his affiliation with or activity for LTTE, and of indication that the Sri Lanka authorities or EPDP would have been looking for him. 7.4 The Committee also notes that the author remained in Sri Lanka from 2007, when his cousin was murdered, until 2012, and that he did not indicate that he had any kind of political activity while abroad or that he could be perceived as having a link, even tenuous, with LTTE, that would go beyond the contact that any retailer had with LTTE members in the Jaffna Peninsula during the civil war. The author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party, but does not demonstrate that they are manifestly unreasonable. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author will face a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant if he were removed to Sri Lanka. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the removal of the author to Sri Lanka, would not violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 16 17 18 19 8 Communications No. 2007/2010, J.J.N. v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. See, inter alia, ibid. and communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, inadmissibility decision adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4, and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3.