CCPR/C/117/D/2493/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims 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 takes note of the author’s claim that all domestic remedies have been exhausted. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s general claim that his deportation to Somalia would violate his rights under article 9 of the Covenant. The Committee observes, however, that the author has failed to provide any substantiation whatsoever in this regard. Therefore the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim for the purposes of admissibility, and accordingly it declares this part of the communication inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.17 7.5 The Committee also 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 his forcible return to Somalia 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 7.18 7.6 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the communication is admissible as far as it raises issues under article 7 of the Covenant, and it proceeds to its examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The 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 recalls paragraph 12 of 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 articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant.19 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 20 and that 17 18 19 20 10 See, for example, communication No. 2393/2014, K. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 16 July 2015, para. 6.4. See, for example, communication No. 2347/2014, K.G. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 March 2016, para. 6.4. See para. 12. See, for example, communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; 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; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland,