CCPR/C/116/D/2422/2014 raised by the Refugee Appeals Board and the State party. 16 The author further responds to the State party’s observations on additional credibility issues. The author claims that he did not stay in the same room at his mother’s house for two years, but did hide indoors in the house for two years. He maintains that he stayed in the basement when there were visitors, because he “feared for his and his mother’s life, if the people of the village found out that his mother was hiding an Armenian soldier in Azerbaijan”. He also asserts that it is not unlikely that, after two years of living in hiding, he was unable to tolerate his situation and therefore contacted H to obtain help in fleeing Azerbaijan. 5.4 The author further argues that there is nothing unlikely or inconsistent in his explanation concerning his birth certificate. The author states that he cannot explain why his mother attached his and V’s birth certificates around their chests, as he does not know what she was thinking. The author also maintains that, although the State party considers that he was unable to provide adequate information about the way in which he and V were treated in the military, he cannot be expected to provide every detail about this, because such an explanation would be very long, and because the treatment he experienced was very humiliating and is difficult to discuss. Although the State party raises credibility issues concerning the digging of the trenches, the author further argues that at no point has he claimed that he dug trenches “in the evening”; rather, he stated at the Board hearing that he had been “digging trenches from 7 a.m. until midnight”. 5.5 Finally, the author submits that, although the State party considers that he was unable to give detailed information about H and A, this is because H and A were very secretive, and the author and his brother were “very shy and scared”. On the basis of the foregoing, the author maintains that he would be at “great risk of being exposed to deprivation of his life or to torture or other degrading treatment” if he were removed to Armenia. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether or not the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 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. The Committee notes that it is undisputed that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the author’s claim under article 7 of the Covenant is manifestly ill founded and is therefore inadmissible. However, the Committee considers that the author has explained the reasons for which he fears that forcible return to Armenia would result in a risk of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. The author also explains why he believes that the findings of the Refugee Appeals Board concerning his credibility were subjective and flawed. The Committee is therefore of the opinion that this part of the communication, raising issues under article 7 of the Covenant, has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. 16 10 See paras. 2.10 through 2.16 above.