CCPR/C/117/D/2559/2015 5.3 The author submits that after interim measures were granted by the Committee, he started studying in a school that offered a range of different classes for young adults. He obtained a driving licence. Most importantly, he was reunited with his family and friends. He has integrated into Danish society and is now no different from other Danish young adults. He maintains that his deportation would constitute a severe violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. He has no family in Somalia and would be living in constant fear of Al-Shabaab. He also maintains that the current conditions in Somalia for people who have refused to join Al-Shabaab are of such character as to place him at real risk of being exposed to torture. He argues that the State party has failed to establish why he should not be granted asylum and reiterates that his planned deportation would violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. State party’s further observations 6.1 In its observations dated 28 October 2015, the State party submits that the author’s submission of 24 September 2015 does not give rise to any further comments by the State party. It reiterates that the author’s claim of an alleged violation of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights does not concern the Covenant and therefore falls outside the scope of competence of the Committee as set out in article 3 of the Optional Protocol. It also reiterates that section 26 of the Aliens Act does not apply to asylum cases falling within section 7 of that Act. Accordingly, the provision does not apply to the author’s case. 6.2 The State party maintains that the communication is manifestly ill-founded and should be declared inadmissible. Should the Committee find the communication admissible, the State party maintains that returning the author to Somalia would not constitute a violation of the provisions of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s statement that his application for asylum and the application requesting that his residence permit be deemed not to have lapsed have been rejected by the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board, that the decisions of the Board are not subject to appeal and that domestic remedies have, therefore, been exhausted. This has not been challenged by the State party. The Committee also notes the State party’s submission that on 16 January 2015 the Ministry of Justice refused the author’s application for residence on humanitarian grounds.Therefore, the Committee considers that domestic remedies have been exhausted as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that his return to the Somalia would put him at risk of being subjected to torture. The author bases this allegation on the fact that in 2010 members of the militant group Al-Shabaab contacted him by telephone and wanted him to join them, that he left the country because he did not want to do that and that refusing to be recruited by Al-Shabaab meant being at risk of being killed. 7.5 The Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board thoroughly examined the author’s claim and considered his personal circumstances, as well as the general situation of young males who are at threat of being recruited by Al-Shabaab, and concluded that the author’s personal background does not place him at risk of being tortured. The Committee 7