CCPR/C/117/D/2462/2014 8.5 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, 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. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal22 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 23 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general situation of human rights in the author’s country of origin.24 8.6 The Committee further 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,25 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. 26 8.7 In the present communication, the Committee notes that the State party considered that the author was older than 18, while the Section of Forensic Pathology had concluded that “a certain probability existed” that the author might be as young as 17. It also notes the State party’s arguments that the author’s age has been properly assessed by the Danish Immigration Service and upheld by the Ministry of Justice; that the Refugee Appeals Board assessed the author’s procedural capacity even if he was over 18, and that the author’s vulnerability was properly assessed in accordance with the relevant UNHCR guidelines. It notes that the State party did not question the authenticity of the birth certificate that the author provided, but questioned the way in which it was obtained. The Committee notes that, in this context, the State party did not consider that the author could be a minor; it did not provide him with any of the assistance he was entitled to as a minor during the asylum procedure; and it did not take into account the fact that the author could be a minor likely to face a personal risk when assessing whether his return to Bangladesh would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee considers that this practice amounts to a procedural defect in the examination of the author’s request for asylum. 8.8 The Committee further notes that the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board concluded that the author���s homosexuality was suspicious and that he had not demonstrated that his alleged homosexuality would put him at risk in case of return to Bangladesh. The Committee also notes that, to reach this conclusion, the State party focused on the assessment of the credibility of the author throughout the procedure, without further evaluating the statements before it. The Committee in particular notes that in its decision of 4 December 2012, the Board did not explain on which grounds it had disregarded the author’s self-identification as homosexual and his allegations of a real risk of persecution or abuse if he was returned to Bangladesh. Furthermore, since the 22 23 24 25 26 See communications No. 2007/2010, X 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. See X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and communication No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. Ibid. and see, inter alia, communication No. 541/1993, Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility 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. 11