CCPR/C/119/D/2240/2013 Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 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 articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 12 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 13 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.14 7.3 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of State 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 clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s claim that he would face ill-treatment or death if removed to Afghanistan owing to previous persecution suffered at the hands of the Taliban. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that, inter alia, there is no evidence indicating that the author would be at an individualized and substantial risk of torture, having regard to the lack of credibility ascribed to the author’s account and the fact that his scars were likely received during his years of active military service during a period of particular instability in Afghanistan, and further notes the State party’s submission 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 in Afghanistan. 7.5 The Committee takes note that the State party’s authorities, having examined the evidence provided by the author in his asylum application, including interviews and oral hearings, found that the author had not shown that he would be at a personal risk of harm upon return to Afghanistan. The Committee notes, in particular, that the Refugee Appeals Board did not find the author’s account of events prior to his departure from Afghanistan credible, owing to inconsistencies in information given at different stages of the asylum process. The Board did accept that the author had scarring on his body but did not accept his explanation of how it had happened. Consequently, the Board found that the author did not have a well-founded fear of persecution by the Taliban. It observed that the author had had the opportunity to review evidence given at each stage of the asylum process with an interpreter and to correct any inconsistencies that he found, but that he had not done so. 7.6 The Committee notes the author’s statement in his application to reopen the case before the Refugee Appeals Board that the State party’s determination in his case was largely based on an erroneous interpretation of his description of the method by which his colleague was stabbed in the neck. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that the author’s explanation of this misunderstanding did not explain the inconsistencies in his comparative accounts on that issue and neither did he sufficiently explain the other inconsistencies inherent in his testimonies. 7.7 In the light of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. While the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, he has not shown that those conclusions were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous or that they amounted to a denial of justice. In these 12 13 14 See para. 12. See, among others, communications No. 2280/2013, Y v. Canada, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 7.2; and No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2. See communications No. 2280/2013, Y v. Canada, para. 7.2; No. 2007/2010, X 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. 9