CCPR/C/126/D/2603/2015 subjected to torture on suspicion of working for the Afghan intelligence service and the United States forces, even if the Taliban could not identify the author with certainty. He also alleges that after his departure, his family received another threatening letter from the Taliban, addressed to him. The author submits background information on threats to persons working with foreign soldiers or the Afghan National Security Forces, as well as to individuals suspected of supporting “anti-government elements”. 9.3 On the other hand, the Committee notes that the State party challenged the admissibility and substance of these claims, and that the State party agreed with the Refugee Appeals Board’s assessment, which, while accepting substantial elements of the author’s statements as facts, found that the author had failed to establish that there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be at risk of being killed or subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment if he were returned to Afghanistan. In particular, the Committee is mindful that the Refugee Appeals Board, in its findings of 18 April 2016, reassessed the author’s statements and found the following to be facts: (a) the author worked as a soldier and performed first aid at a United States base in Kunar Province; (b) the Taliban made written threats against the author twice in that connection; and (c) the author was kidnapped by the Taliban in 2013. However, the Board found that the threatening letters were not of such a nature and intensity as to render it probable that the Taliban would continue to contact the author. The Board also considered that the author had failed to clearly substantiate that his kidnapping was connected to his work for the United States forces, and noted that he was not identified during his capture. The Board therefore concluded that the author had not become a high-profile individual as a result of that kidnapping and that he did not risk continued persecution due to the kidnapping or due to his former work at the United States base. 9.4 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 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. 17 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. 18 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.19 9.5 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 States parties to the Covenant to review and evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists, unless it can be established that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 20 9.6 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence whereby, similarly to the present case, the issue before the Committee was to consider whether past affiliation with the international forces in certain countries could indicate a future risk of persecution contrary to article 7 of the Covenant.21 17 18 19 20 21 Para. 12 of the general comment. 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. X v. Denmark (CCPR/C/110/D/2007/2010), para. 9.2; and X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Lin v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. In K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), the Committee concluded that there was no violation of the Covenant, considering that the author had failed to provide substantial grounds to support the claim that he would be exposed to a personal risk if returned to Afghanistan solely on the basis of his past experience as an interpreter for the United States forces. In coming to that conclusion, the Committee found it decisive that the domestic courts thoroughly examined the author’s claims, including the alleged threats he had received, but found them to be inconsistent. In A.H. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2370/2014) however, the Committee found a violation of article 7 by Denmark establishing that the facts of the case, read in their totality, including the information on the author’s 9