CCPR/C/121/D/2612/2015 Egypt should not consider his support for the Muslim Brotherhood separately, but in conjunction with his situation as a draft evader who strongly opposes President Al-Sisi. The author also submits that the human rights situation and the prison conditions in Egypt have continued deteriorating.8 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 As required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee has ascertained 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 he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in that connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 6.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. The Committee however considers that the author has raised numerous risk factors, which, cumulatively, sufficiently substantiated his claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that his deportation to Egypt by the State party would constitute a violation of article 7 of the Covenant since he will be considered a repeat draft evader in his country of origin. He will therefore be subjected to a disproportionate sentence of at least seven years’ imprisonment under severe prison conditions and ill-treatment. The Committee also notes the State party’s arguments that the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board thoroughly reviewed the allegations and documentation contained in the author’s communication and concluded that he was not in need of asylum or international protection. 7.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31, 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. 9 The Committee has indicated in its jurisprudence that the risk must be personal 10 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 11 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 12 The 8 9 10 11 12 8 The author refers to Amnesty International Report 2015/16 — Egypt; 2017 Human Rights Watch, World Report 2017 — Egypt; and Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Annual Report 2016. 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 communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid.