CCPR/C/117/D/2443/2014 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 personal12 and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.13 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin. 14 9.3 In the present case, the Committee observes that the reports on the human rights situation in Chechnya and the situation of Chechens in the Russian Federation invoked by the parties15 indicate, as also confirmed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Moscow, that relatives of suspected insurgents or relatives of alleged supporters of the insurgents would face a lot of pressure by the authorities and that family members could be called in for questioning, which could include everything from a slap in the face to severe beatings depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the individual police officers 16 conducting the interrogations. Those reports also indicate, however, that women are not exposed to beatings and other forms of physical violence in police custody as often as male detainees. 9.4 The Committee notes that in the instant case neither party contests the fact that the author is a Russian national of Chechen origin, that she has not been a member of any political organization and that she has not been politically active. It also notes that the author does not argue that she participated, supported or was otherwise involved in Chechen rebel activities. The Committee notes her claims that she has been perceived by the authorities as a rebel sympathizer because of her son’s activities and because of her selling bread to possible rebels, and that as a result she was detained, ill-treated and tortured by the police in November 2012, prior to her departure from the Russian Federation. Against this background, the Committee notes that the Refugee Appeals Board rejected the author’s asylum request on 6 March 2014 and her request on 1 July 2014 that her case be reopened, considering that the author had failed to substantiate her claim that she would be at risk of persecution or torture if returned to the Russian Federation. 9.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, 17 and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine 12 13 14 15 16 17 10 See communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.2; No. 282/2005, S.P.A. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 7 November 2006; No. 333/2007, T.I. v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 15 November 2010; No. 344/2008, A.M.A. v. Switzerland, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 12 November 2010; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 2347/2014, K.G. v Denmark, Views adopted on 22 March 2016, para. 7.2. Communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18; and No. 2347/2014, K.G. v Denmark, Views adopted on 22 March 2016; para 7.2. Ibid. See, inter alia, Chechens in the Russian Federation (see footnote 8) and Security and Human Rights in Chechnya (see footnote 11). See Security and Human Rights in Chechnya (see footnote 8), sect. 4.8, “Family members to active members of the illegal armed groups and family members to supporters of the illegal armed groups”. See communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18.