CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011 failed to take properly into account, or any other irregularity in the decision-making process. The author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, but does not show that they are manifestly unreasonable. The Committee therefore concludes that it was not shown that the authorities in Senegal would not generally be willing and able to provide impartial, adequate and effective protection to the author against threats to his physical safety, and that it would not be unreasonable to expect him to settle in a location, especially one more distant from Touba, where such protection would be available to him. Provided that the author would only be returned to such a location where the State party determines that adequate and effective protection is available, the Committee cannot conclude that removing him to Senegal would violate the State party’s obligations under article 6 or 7 of the Covenant. 7.5 With regard to the author’s claims under article 18, the Committee refers to its conclusions in paragraph 7.4, and on the same basis finds that it could not conclude that the author would face a real risk of treatment inconsistent with that article if he were removed to Senegal. 8. The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is of the view that the author’s removal to Senegal would not violate his rights under article 6, 7 or 18 of the Covenant. 11