CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 42 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal43 and that 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. 44 7.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that significant weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and 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.45 7.4 The Committee notes the author’s allegation that the State party failed to take into account that the risk he would face if removed to Sri Lanka is the result of a combination of factors that cannot be considered in an isolated manner. He is a Tamil from the north and a failed asylum seeker who used to work for a newspaper perceived as supporter of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and critic of the Government and had been victim of several violations of his rights in the past, owing to his work as a photojournalist. The Committee notes that the author’s claims mainly rely on the assessment of evidence by the State authorities, arguing that it was not adequately taken into account. 7.5 In this regard, the Committee notes that the State party does not dispute that the author is a Tamil from the north who would be returned to Sri Lanka with an emergency document issued upon request of the Canadian authorities. The Committee further notes that the State party does not dispute that journalists currently working in Sri Lanka are in danger, including those working for the Uthayan (see para. 4.7).46 However, the State party contends that the author did not demonstrate that he worked for the Uthayan from 2007 to 2008 and in 2011 and that, even if the Committee accepted the author’s account regarding his work for the newspaper, he did not prove that his locally focused work could attract the attention of the national authorities, years after he had published his photographs under an alias. The Committee notes that the Canadian domestic authorities did not accept as reliable evidence several documents submitted by the author to the Immigration Refugee Board,47 and evidence submitted to the pre-removal risk assessment officer,48 aimed at establishing 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 14 See general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 12. See, inter alia, Y. v. Canada (note 41 above), para. 7.2; communication No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2; and No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. See Y v. Canada (note 41 above), para. 7.2, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; communication No. 1833/2008, X v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See, inter alia, Y v. Canada (note 41 above), para. 7.5; communication No. 2258/2013, Rasappu v. Canada, Views adopted on 4 November 2015, para. 7.3; and X v. Canada (note 40 above), para. 9.3. Uthayan, founded in 1985, has been the target of several attacks throughout its history, including two attacks in April 2013. Six of its journalists have been killed in connection with their work. According to the World Press Freedom Index 2014 of Reporters without Borders, “Uthayan does not hesitate to criticize the Government’s authoritarian methods and continues to pay a high price for not kowtowing to either the military or the Government”. Wouldn’t be better to leave the source? Including the press credentials dated 1 January 2011, photographs showing the author receiving a photography award in 2006, a letter by Mr. N.R. stating that he worked with the author for Uthayan between the end of 2006 and 2007. The pre-removal risk assessment officer did not accept as reliable an affidavit signed by the author’s mother dated 23 November 2012 confirming most of his claims, an undated letter by Ms. S indicating that he had been a photojournalist, a letter dated 3 May 2013 signed by the Chief Editor of Uthayan confirming that the author had worked for the newspaper between October 2006 and May 2011, and a