CCPR/C/119/D/2253/2013 4.4 The State party further indicates that the Committee is not competent to review the author’s allegations under articles 19 and 26, as it would imply an extraterritorial application of the Covenant, given that such violations would not take place in Denmark or in any territory under the effective control of Danish authorities, but rather in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The State party refers to several decisions by the European Court of Human Rights, which has applied extraterritorial effect in respect of articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) 16 on the basis of the fundamental importance of those provisions. However, the State party points out that the Court has also stated that “it cannot be required that an expelling Contracting State only return an alien to a country which is in full and effective enforcement of all the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention”.17 The State party considers that a similar reasoning can be applied in the present case, and recalls that article 1 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (a) of the Committee’s rules of procedure stipulate that the Committee has the competence to consider communications from individuals who are subject to the jurisdiction of a State party and who claim to be victims of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. Although the Committee has found on a number of occasions that deportations of persons by a State party to other States would result in a foreseeable breach of their right to life or to their freedom from torture as enshrined under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, it has never considered a complaint on its merits regarding the deportation of a person who feared a violation of provisions other than articles 6 and 7 in the receiving State. Extraditing, deporting, expelling or removing a person who fears that his rights under articles 19 and 26 may be violated by another State party will not cause irreparable harm, the standard set by the Committee through its jurisprudence. 18 The State party therefore requests that this part of the communication be declared inadmissible ratione loci and ratione materiae pursuant to rule 96 (d) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, read together with rule 96 (a) and article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 4.5 Regarding the merits of the communication, the State party submits that the author has failed to establish that his return to the Islamic Republic of Iran constitutes a violation of articles 7, 19 and 26 of the Covenant. Regarding article 7, the State party indicates that its obligations under such provision are reflected in section 7 (2) of the Aliens Act, which establishes that a permit will be issued to an alien if he or she risks being subjected to the death penalty or to torture or ill-treatment in his or her country of origin. The State party recalls that the author alleged that he would be at risk of a breach of article 7 of the Covenant if returned to his country because he had been involved in smuggling political material from the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan and medicine from Iraq to the Islamic Republic of Iran and had participated in several demonstrations against the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran while in Denmark, including a hunger strike that had been broadly disseminated through Facebook and a film that had been shown in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The author also feared being returned to the Islamic Republic of Iran without a valid travel document. 4.6 The State party indicates that the Refugee Appeals Board undertook a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence submitted by the author. It considers that he is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of his asylum application reassessed. The State party submits that the 16 17 18 6 The State party refers to the European Court of Human Rights, applications No. 14038/88, Soering v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 7 July 1989, and No. 27034/05, Z and T v. the United Kingdom, decision of 28 February 2006. European Court of Human Rights, application No. 17341/03, F. v. the United Kingdom, decision of 22 June 2004, p. 12. The State party refers to paragraph 12 of the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which the Committee states that the article 2 obligation requiring that States parties respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and all persons under their control entails an obligation 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, either in the country to which removal is to be effected or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed.