CCPR/C/125/D/2373/2014 8.7 The Committee declares the communication admissible insofar as it appears to raise issues under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and proceeds to consider it on the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The issue before the Committee is whether the removal of the author to Afghanistan (on 2 August 2015) amounted to a violation by the State party of its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 9.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which the Committee 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. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high.21 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.22 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, 23 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.24 9.4 The Committee notes the State party’s observation that its obligations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant are reflected in section 7 (1) and (2) of the Aliens Act, under which a residence permit will be issued to an alien upon application if the alien risks the death penalty or being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if returned to his or her country of origin. The Committee also notes the State party’s observation that the assessment of whether an alien risks persecution or abuse justifying asylum if returned to his or her country of origin must normally be made in the light of the information available at the time of the decision, that is, the existence of the risk must be assessed primarily with reference to the facts that were known or ought to have been known by the State party at the time of the expulsion. According to the State party, the decisive factor must be whether, at the time of the Board’s decision of 11 February 2014, information was available that supported the author’s allegation that he would be at risk of being subjected to persecution or abuse justifying asylum if he were returned to Afghanistan. 25 The State party asserted that the author’s certificate of baptism of 23 February 2014 had been submitted after the Board’s final decision of 11 February 2014, and that the new information on his conversion to Christianity had been submitted only on 3 August 2015, following the author’s removal to Afghanistan the day before. 9.5 The Committee notes, in particular, the Refugee Appeals Board’s finding of 11 February 2014 that many of the author’s allegations can be considered as facts; however, the Board found that the land dispute had not been of such a nature or intensity as to give reason to assume that the author would be at a real risk of abuse from his neighbour if the author were returned to Afghanistan. The Committee observes that, according to the 21 22 23 24 25 12 See X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; A.R.J. v. Australia (CCPR/C/60/D/692/1996), para. 6.6; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Ibid. See Lin v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. See Y.A.A. and F.H.M. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2681/2015) para. 7.3; and Rezaifar v. Denmark (CCPR/C/119/D/2512/2014), para. 8.3. The Board considered, inter alia, the author’s allegations that he used to work for the army, but that he was subjected to an attempted rape and therefore quit his job (see para. 2.3). However, as his grounds for asylum, the author referred to his fear that, if he were returned to Afghanistan, he would be killed by his neighbour because of a land dispute or executed by the Afghan authorities because of his interest in Christianity.