CCPR/C/113/D/2192/2012 raised that particular argument in the appeals proceedings regarding his detention before the Russian courts. Accordingly, the Committee considers that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 9.4 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claims under article 7 of the Covenant, for purposes of admissibility and proceeds to their examination on the merits. Consideration of the merits 10.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that, if the Russian Federation proceeds with his extradition, that would constitute a violation of his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10.3 The Committee recalls 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 (para. 12). The Committee also recalls that, generally speaking, it is for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists.18 10.4 The Committee observes that the author’s claims that he would be subjected to torture if extradited to Kyrgyzstan were examined by the State party’s Federal Migration Service, in the course of the refugee status determination proceedings and by the Russian courts in the course of the extradition proceedings, who found that he did not substantiate that he had been tortured in the past and that he would face a real, foreseeable and personal risk of being subjected to torture if returned to Kyrgyzstan. The Committee further notes that most of the evidence presented by the author relates to the general human rights situation in his country of origin rather than to his specific case. The Committee also notes the absence of any evidence establishing that the decisions of the State party’s authorities were manifestly unreasonable with respect to the allegations of the author. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the author’s extradition to Kyrgyzstan exposed him to a real risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant. 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the Russian Federation of its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 12. The State party is under an obligation to avoid violations of article 1 of the Optional Protocol in the future and to comply with the requests of the Committee for interim measures. 18 12 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.