CCPR/C/122/D/2642/2015 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the 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 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. 7.3 The Committee observes that the author filed an application for asylum in Denmark, which was ultimately rejected by the Refugee Appeals Board on 7 January 2014, and it notes that the State party does not challenge the exhaustion of domestic remedies by the author. Therefore, the Committee considers that it is not precluded from examining the communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 23 7.4 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under article 1 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible, as an individual cannot claim to be victim of a violation of the right to self-determination, because such provision deals with rights conferred to peoples. The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that it does not have competence under the Optional Protocol to consider claims alleging a violation of the right to self-determination protected under article 1 of the Covenant. 24 It reiterates that the Optional Protocol provides for a procedure according to which individuals can claim that their individual rights have been violated and recalls that these rights are set out in part III (arts. 6–27) of the Covenant.25 It follows that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. 7.5 The Committee notes the author’s claim that if he were to be returned to his country, his rights under article 9 of the Covenant would be violated, as he would be arbitrarily arrested and could even be sentenced to death, taking into account that he has been charged with several crimes committed by the Jamaat-e-Islami and that he is a member of that organization. The Committee also notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author failed to demonstrate that a flagrant breach of article 9 could occur in the receiving State, and that this disposition cannot therefore be applied extraterritorially. The Committee recalls that article 2 of the Covenant requires that States parties respect and ensure the Covenant rights for all persons in their territory and all persons under their jurisdiction. This entails, inter alia, an obligation not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory, 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 country to which removal is to be effected, or in any country to which the person may subsequently be removed. 26 In that connection, the Committee notes that the author did not provide sufficient information regarding his claim under article 9 of the Covenant that would enable the Committee to conclude that his allegations regarding deprivation of liberty would amount to irreparable harm such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has failed to substantiate, for the purposes of admissibility, his allegations that the State party would violate article 9 and it declares that part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.27 23 24 25 26 27 10 See, for example, A.S.M. and R.A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2378/2014), para. 7.3. See, for example, H.E.A.K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2343/2014); and Gillot v. France (CCPR/C/75/D/932/2000), para. 13.4. See, for example, Ominayak et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984), para. 32.1. See the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See also Ch.H.O. v. Canada (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.5; and Contreras v. Canada (CCPR/C/118/D/2195/2012), para. 9.5. See S.Z. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/117/D/2443/2014), para. 8.4.