CCPR/C/129/D/2970/2017 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all domestic remedies available to her. 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. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the author’s claims that, because of her prohibited marriage, contracted without her family’s consent, to a person of a caste lower than her own, she would risk death, torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment at the hands of members of her family or Mauritanian society if she were deported to Mauritania. The Committee also takes note of the author’s assertion that her son would be unable to obtain a permanent visa in Mauritania and would be subjected to discrimination and persecution. In addition, the Committee notes the author’s claim that she and her son would be unable to turn to the Mauritanian authorities for protection. 6.5 The Committee recalls paragraph 12 of its general comment No. 31 (2004), in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when 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.15 The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.16 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.17 The Committee stresses 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. 18 6.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the risk of irreparable harm was not assessed in an objective and impartial manner by the authorities of the State party. It also notes the author’s assertions that the State party’s asylum procedures do not provide for an effective remedy in the event of an unfavourable initial decision. In addition, the Committee notes the author’s claim that her son’s best interests were not properly taken into account by the official responsible for examining her application for permanent resident status on humanitarian grounds. The Committee also acknowledges the State party’s comments to the effect that the decisions of the official responsible for processing the application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds, the official responsible for the pre-removal risk assessment and the Canada Border Services Agency, who reached the conclusion that the author and her son were not facing a serious risk of prejudicial treatment upon their return to Mauritania, were the result of rigorous analyses and that all these agencies concluded that the author’s claims lacked credibility. In addition, the Committee notes the State party’s view that the author’s claims and the evidence she submitted contain contradictions. The Committee notes, too, that the State party has made clear that the author’s son has not been ordered to be deported to Mauritania, and has also stated that, if the author were to decide not to take her son with her to Mauritania, alternative care was available for him either with 15 16 17 18 GE.21-00740 A v. Denmark (CCPR/C/116/D/2357/2014), para. 7.4. See, inter alia, A and B v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2291/2013), para. 8.3. See, inter alia, A and B v. Denmark, para. 8.3; X v. Norway (CCPR/C/115/D/2474/2014), para. 7.3; and X v. Canada (CCPR/C/115/D/2366/2014), para. 9.3. See, inter alia, I.M.Y. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2559/2015), para. 7.6; and K v. Denmark, (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.4. 7