CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014 merits separately from parallel claims under articles 6 and 7. The Committee similarly has recognized non-refoulement claims under article 9 as potentially admissible.5 7. We therefore do not read paragraph 7.5 as foreclosing the possibility that an author may validly advance a claim that he or she would face a real risk of irreparable harm for violations under articles 17 and 24 or of other Covenant rights. Certainly, at least where such a claim would involve harms that might also constitute irreparable harm regarding the right to life under article 6 or torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 7, such a claim should, if adequately substantiated, be admissible and subject to resolution on the merits, in conjunction with a violation of one or both of those articles. 5 14 See communication No. 2443/2014, S.Z. v. Denmark, Views adopted in June 2016, para. 8.4, declaring the author’s claim under article 9 regarding risk of arbitrary detention post-deportation as inadmissible for lack of sufficient substantiation; see also the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014) on liberty and security of person, para. 57, which reads as follows: “Returning an individual to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the individual faces a real risk of a severe violation of liberty or security of person such as prolonged arbitrary detention may amount to inhuman treatment prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant.” GE.17-20685