CCPR/C/124/D/2734/2016 the evidence before them.28 In the present case, no new information has been adduced that was not available when the Refugee Appeals Board made its decision. Author’s comments on the State party’s additional submission 7. On 10 September 2018, the author reiterated her observations and referred to the Committee’s Views cited by the State party (see para. 6.2), arguing that the State party’s analysis of this jurisprudence was not thorough, and that it should rather be interpreted in her favour. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 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. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that she has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to her, and that the State party has not disputed this claim. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from considering the present communication. 8.4 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is unsubstantiated. However, the Committee considers that, for the purpose of admissibility, the author has adequately explained the reasons for which she fears that her forcible return to Italy would result in a risk of treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. As no other obstacles to admissibility exist, the Committee declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that deporting her and her newborn child to Italy, pursuant to the Dublin III Regulation principle of first country of asylum, would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 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 (para. 12), in which it referred to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there were substantial grounds for believing that there was a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated by article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal 29 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.30 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 31 The Committee recalls 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, 32 unless it can be 28 29 30 31 32 GE.19-02298 X v. Sweden (application No. 36417/16), judgment of 9 January 2018, paras. 47–51. K. v. Denmark, para. 7.3; P.T. v. Denmark, para. 7.2; and X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2. X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Ibid. See also, X. v. Denmark, para. 9.2. Pillai et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/101/D/1763/2008), paras. 11.2 and 11.4; and Z.H. v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. 9