CCPR/C/126/D/2685/2015 Annex I Individual opinion of Shuichi Furuya (dissenting) 1. I am unable to concur with the Committee’s conclusion that the authors’ removal to Afghanistan would, if implemented, violate their rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 2. The main ground of the conclusion is that the State party, relying only on certain inconsistencies in the authors’ statements, failed to evaluate the real risk of irreparable harm to which they may be exposed (para. 9.8). In my view, however, this conclusion overlooks the essential structure of the procedure for verifying refugee status. The evaluation of the likelihood that an asylum seeker may face persecution in the country of origin has two stages: the first stage is to confirm the factual circumstances of the asylum seeker and to specify the potential grounds for persecution; the second is to evaluate whether and to what extent those facts would create a real risk of persecution in the light of the situation in the country in question. In this respect, examining the veracity of the statements and documents that an asylum seeker has provided for explaining his or her circumstances is an indispensable prerequisite for proceeding to the risk evaluation. 3. In the present case, therefore, it is not correct to state that the Danish authorities failed to undertake an individualized assessment of the risk that the authors would face in Afghanistan. Rather, from the observations made by the State party, it is clear that the authorities examined the factual circumstances of the authors by sincerely hearing the statements they made and verifying the documents they submitted in order to undertake a risk assessment. Nevertheless, the examination led the authorities to the finding that the authors’ statements and documents were doubtful in a lot of crucial points. In the event that the credibility of factual circumstance is not sufficiently assured, it is reasonable that the authorities do not – or that they are unable to – proceed to the second stage: the assessment of a possible risk of irreparable harm that the authors may face. 4. As the Committee concludes in paragraph 9.4, it is generally up to the organs of the State party to examine the facts and evidence of the case in question in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial justice. The Committee should therefore verify whether the evaluation by the Danish authorities of the credibility of the authors’ statements and documents was made adequately, so that it may not be deemed as clearly arbitrary or amounting to manifest error. 5. According to the Committee’s jurisprudence, it is incumbent on the authors to establish whether there was such arbitrariness or manifest error in the assessment by the Danish authorities. In the present case, the authorities heard the authors’ statements several times and examined the relevant documents, and then cast doubt on the crucial facts relevant to the possible risk of persecution, such as the timing of the authors’ sexual intercourse (para. 2.2, footnote 5, and para. 4.8), their departure from Afghanistan, their stay in Turkey and Greece and the birth of their son (para. 4.10) and the killing of R.M.’s brother (para. 2.1, footnote 3, and para. 4.12). Accordingly, the authors must have demonstrated to the Committee that the authorities’ finding casting doubt on the credibility of their statements and documents had been erroneous. In my view, however, the authors did not respond to the uncertainties above with persuasive evidence, and therefore failed to convince the Committee that their statements and documents were sufficiently credible to assume that the assessment by the authorities had been so erroneous as to be deemed clearly arbitrary. 6. For the reason above, I have to conclude that the authors’ allegation concerning the violation of articles 6 and 7 is insufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility, and thus this part of the communication is also inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 15