CCPR/C/116/D/2314/2013 Canada would not be engaged.22 The State party argues that that it is not aware of any decision of the Committee according to which the removal of a person could violate any right contained in the Covenant, different from those established in articles 6 and 7, and therefore considers that the Committee should hold the author’s allegation under article 9 (1) inadmissible.23 4.4 The State party further argues that the communication should be declared inadmissible because the author’s allegations are manifestly unfounded. It submits that it is generally for the domestic authorities to evaluate facts and evidence, unless it can be ascertained that the conduct of the proceedings at issue or the evaluation of the facts and evidence are manifestly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice,24 which is not the case in the present communication. All the evidence presented to the Committee was previously reviewed by the domestic authorities, and the author did not present any new evidence or facts to the Committee that could demonstrate that he would be at real risk if returned to Sri Lanka. The State party considers that the Committee should give weight to the decisions of domestic authorities, in particular the Immigration Refugee Board, which considered that the author had failed to substantiate most of his allegations regarding his past experiences in Sri Lanka. 4.5 The State party indicates that the most plausible view of the author’s account is that he did some photography work for the Uthayan for several months beginning late 2006. The author may also have been mistreated by soldiers of the Sri Lankan Army in February 2007. However, he was unable to provide any proof of his work as a professional photographer. The State party considers that none of the submitted documents provided reliable evidence of his work for the Uthayan between 2006 and 2011. Regarding the press credentials issued by the Uthayan dated 1 January 2011, the State party submits that it is likely a forgery and that it is not consistent with the author’s claims that he worked through an intermediary. Regarding the photographs of the author receiving an award in 2006, the State party submits that they do not demonstrate that the author was granted an award for his work as a photographer. As to the letter dated 20 May 2015 signed by the Chief Editor of the of the Uthayan indicating that the author had worked for the newspaper as a photojournalist from 8 October 2006 to 3 May 2011, the State party considers it is not a reliable document because, given that the author allegedly worked under an alias and through an intermediary, it is unlikely that the Chief Editor would know him, and the letter does not provide any explanation in that regard. In addition, the author did not give a plausible explanation as to why the letter was not provided to the Canadian authorities at 22 24 8 The State party notes that the Committee has considered on an exceptional basis that the Covenant has an extraterritorial application. It quotes general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, which states that article 2 of the Covenant entails an obligation not to remove a person 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 in the receiving State (see CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13, para. 12). It also quotes general comment No. 35 (2014) on article 9, which establishes that 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 (see CCPR/C/GC/35, para. 57). 23 Reference is made to communication No. 1881/2009, Shakeel v. Canada, Views adopted on 24 July 2013 and to the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence, in particular regarding the views of the Court on the territorial applicability of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Application No. 14038/88, Soering v. the United Kingdom, 7 July 1989, para. 86. Reference is made to several communications of the Committee, including No. 1455/2006, Kaur v. Canada, decision adopted on 30 October 2008.