CCPR/C/121/D/2643/2015 the circumstance of the author returning as a failed asylum seeker, with a low-risk profile, could not lead to a different assessment, as she had no conflicts with the Sri Lankan authorities. In this regard, the Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the Board made both an individualized assessment and an overall assessment of the specific circumstances of the author’s case, taking into account the background information on the situation in Sri Lanka, and found that the author was not facing any threat that would justify asylum in Denmark. 8.7 The Committee further notes the author’s submission that her claims were not properly assessed by State party’s authorities and that the Board’s decisions of 10 January 2014 and 22 June 2015 were manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary because she was denied a thorough and oral hearing on the new statements on her and her brother’s affiliation with LTTE, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. In this connection, the Committee notes that, according to the information available in the file: the author was detained once by the Sri Lankan Army and immediately released in 2001; she was of low profile, without any clear affiliation with LTTE; she has not provided any evidence that the authorities had been looking for her or had any interest in her whereabouts in the recent past; and she has not demonstrated that the Sri Lankan authorities would be unable or unwilling to provide her protection against domestic violence. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that certain kinds of abuse by private individuals may be of such scope and intensity as to amount to persecution if the authorities are not able or willing to offer protection. 33 However, the Committee considers that, in the present case, the author’s claims mainly reflect her disagreement with the factual conclusions drawn by the State party, including the alleged risk of being harmed by her former husband, and do not demonstrate that these conclusions are arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable or that the proceedings in question amounted to a denial of justice.34 8.8 In the light of the above, the Committee concludes that the information before it does not demonstrate that the author would face a real and personal risk of treatment contrary to article 7 of the Covenant in the event of her removal to Sri Lanka. 9. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the removal of the author to Sri Lanka would not violate her rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 33 34 14 See communication No. 2288/2013, Omo-Amenaghawon v. Denmark, Views adopted on 23 July 2015, para. 7.5. See e.g. P.T. v. Denmark, para. 7.4.