CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013 8.4 The Committee further notes the State party’s objection to the admissibility of the communication regarding the author’s allegations that his rights under articles 19 and 26 of the Covenant would be breached because of his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as such allegations have not been substantiated. The Committee notes the author’s allegations that his freedom of expression, as established by article 19 of the Covenant, would be violated by his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran, as he would not be able to express his sympathy for Kurdish political parties and freely express his opinions. The Committee also notes the author’s allegation that his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate his right to live free of discrimination as established by article 26 of the Covenant, given the situation of Kurds in that country, and taking into account his political support for Kurdish organizations. The Committee notes that the author has not provided any further information or evidence on how his rights under articles 19 and 26 of the Covenant have been or would be violated by the State party through his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran in a manner that would give rise to an irreparable harm such as that contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 26 Accordingly, the Committee concludes that in the circumstances of the present case, the author’s allegations under articles 19 and 26 of the Covenant are incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant and declares them inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee also notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. It further notes that, according to the author, his removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. In this connection, he submits that he still faces a risk of torture or ill-treatment there because of the illegal activities he carried out before his departure from the Islamic Republic of Iran, namely, smuggling Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan materials from Iraq, because of his participation in several protests against the Iranian regime while in Denmark, including a hunger strike and an interview for a film in which he criticized the Iranian authorities, and because he is a failed asylum seeker and has been returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran without a passport or any valid travel document. In view thereof, the Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his allegations under article 7 of the Covenant for the purpose of admissibility. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 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, where 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. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 27 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.28 9.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a 26 27 28 See general comment No. 31, para. 12. See, inter alia, communications No. 2280/2013, Y. v. Canada, Views adopted on 22 July 2015, para. 7.2; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2; No. 2314/2013, Y. v. Canada, Views adopted on 22 March 2016, 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. 11