CCPR/C/117/D/2559/2015 is aware that concerns have been expressed with respect to Al-Shabaab’s continued presence in Southern and Central Somalia.12 However, the Committee notes that, in examining the author’s asylum request, the Board reviewed the author’s allegations and made a specific and individual risk assessment. 7.6 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of a case, unless it can be established that such an assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.13 The author has not explained why the decision by the Refugee Appeals Board would be contrary to this standard, nor has he provided substantial grounds to support his claim that his removal to Somalia would expose him to a real risk of irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee accordingly concludes that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claim of a violation of article 7 for purposes of admissibility and finds the claim inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7.7 The Committee notes the author’s claims that he has strong ties with the State party, that he lived in the country with his family between the ages of 6 and 15, that his parents and siblings live in the State party and that he came to the country to rejoin them. The Committee also notes that the author refers to a violation of his rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights but observes that the facts as presented by the author appear to raise issues under article 17 of the Covenant and that the wording of article 8 of the Convention is similar to the wording of article 17 of the Covenant. 7.8 The Committee recalls paragraph 5 of its general comment No.16 (1988) on the right to respect of privacy, family, home and correspondence, and protection of honour and reputation, in which it recalls that the objectives of the Covenant require that the term “family” be given broad interpretation.14 The Committee notes, however, that the author has failed to provide sufficient information indicating his strong ties with his parents and siblings between 2003 and 2013, as well as after arriving in the State party in 2013, other than making general statements that he came to the State party in order to be reunited with them. In view of the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the author’s allegations remain general and that he has failed to explain before the Committee why his removal to his country of origin would be a disproportionate measure, resulting in arbitrary interference with his family rights under article 17. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed to sufficiently substantiate his claims of violation of his family rights for the purposes of admissibility and finds them inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol.15 8. The Committee therefore decides: (a) Protocol; (b) 12 13 14 15 8 That the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional That the decision shall be transmitted to the author and to the State party. See, for example, “UNHCR position on returns to Southern and Central Somalia (update 1)”, May 2016, para. 6. Available from www.refworld.org/pdfid/573de9fe4.pdf. See communications No. 1616/2007, Manzano and others v. Colombia, decision adopted on 19 March 2010, para. 6.4; No. 1622/2007, L.D.L.P v. Spain, decision adopted on 26 July 2011, para. 6.3; and No. 2070/2011, Cañada Mora v. Spain, decision adopted on 28 October 2014, para. 4.3. See also communication No. 1959/2010, Warsame v. Canada, Views adopted on 21 July 2011, para. 8.7. See communication No. 2050/2011, E.L.K. v. the Netherlands, decision on admissibility of 30 March 2015, para. 6.3.