CCPR/C/114/D/2329/2014 parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.14 In this connection, the Committee observes that the Refugee Appeals Board, in reaching its decisions of 9 November 2009 and 20 September 2012, took note of the allegations raised by the author before the State party’s authorities, including in the interviews with the Danish National Police and the Danish Immigration Service, and of the documentation submitted by the author in support of his claims, but it concluded that there were no substantive grounds for asylum, as his accounts were considered to be unlikely and fabricated for the occasion. In the absence of evidence establishing that the decisions of the Refugee Appeals Board were manifestly unreasonable or arbitrary with respect to the author’s allegations, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s removal to the Islamic Republic of Iran would expose him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. In the light of this conclusion, the Committee does not deem it necessary to separately examine the author’s claims under article 18 and 19 of the Covenant. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the removal of the author to the Islamic Republic of Iran would not violate his rights under articles 7, 18 and 19 of the Covenant. 14 10 See communication No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and communication No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3.