CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014 there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.10 7.4 The Committee recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.11 7.5 The Committee notes that the Danish RAB thoroughly examined each of the author’s claims, and particularly analysed the alleged threats allegedly received by the author in Afghanistan, and found them to be inconsistent and implausible on several grounds. The author challenges the assessment of evidence and the factual conclusions reached by the RAB, but he does not explain why that assessment would be arbitrary or otherwise amount to a denial of justice. 7.6 As to the author’s general statements regarding the lack of guarantees of proceedings before the RAB, the Committee notes that the author had access to counsel and participated in the oral hearing with the assistance of an interpreter provided by the RAB. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author has not justified how these proceedings would have amounted to a denial of justice in his case. 7.7 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he would be at a general risk of being targeted by the Taliban if returned to Afghanistan. However, the Committee considers that the author has failed to provide substantial grounds to support that he would be exposed to a personal risk if returned to Afghanistan, based solely on his past experience as an interpreter for the United States forces. Therefore, the Committee considers that the author has not justified that his return to Afghanistan would expose him to irreparable harm in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the author’s removal to Afghanistan would not violate his rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 10 11 See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See, among others, communications No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, para. 7.3; No. 2053/2011, B.L. v. Australia, Views adopted on 16 October 2014, para. 7.3; No. 2049/2011, Z. v. Australia, Views adopted on 18 July 2014, para 9.3. 9