CCPR/C/121/D/2770/2016 6.2 With respect to the author’s age, the State party recalls the decision of the Refugee Appeals Board of 30 May 2016, according to which the author did not submit that he was a minor until his asylum claim had been rejected by the Danish Immigration Service. The State party also points out that on 26 September 2016, the Board’s decision was upheld by the Danish Ministry of Immigration, Integration and Housing, as there was no basis for changing the date registered as the author’s date of birth. Therefore, the State party reiterates that there are no substantial grounds for believing that the deportation of the author to Greece would amount to a violation of article 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by 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 takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons for which he fears that his forcible removal to Greece would result in a risk of treatment in violation of article 7 given his alleged age and associated vulnerability. The Committee therefore declares admissible this part of the communication, as it appears to raise issues under article 7. 7.5 The Committee takes note of the author’s allegation that the State party has violated his rights under article 24 of the Covenant, as the Danish authorities did not take the necessary measures to protect him because they did not take any action to determine his real age. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that article 24 of the Covenant lacks extraterritorial application. The Committee considers, however, that the author’s claims under article 24 refer to events that are indissociable from his claims under article 7. It also considers that part of the author’s claims under article 24 pertain to events that occurred in Denmark. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible, insofar as it raises issues under articles 7 and 24 of the Covenant, read jointly and separately, and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his deportation to Greece, on the basis of the Dublin Regulation principle of first country of asylum, would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant, and would violate his rights under article 24, taking into account that he is a minor. The author bases his arguments, inter alia, on the conditions he endured while he was in Greece, as well as on the general conditions of reception for asylum seekers and refugees entering Greece, in particular unaccompanied minors.40 40 10 See European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, monthly data collected by the Agency on the migration situation in the European Union, monthly report 1–30 April 2016; OHCHR, “Migrant children face grim human rights conditions in Greece”, 13 May 2016; Becatoros, “Council of Europe: detention of lone minors ‘unacceptable’”.