CCPR/C/120/D/2625/2015 6.6 The State party further submits that the author has failed to demonstrate that the reopened cases he referred to are similar to his own situation, beyond the fact that the asylum seekers in these cases were also Afghans. In addition, the State party reiterates that the Board decides to reopen a case on the basis of an individual assessment of the applicant’s situation. In the author’s case, it found that he had not produced any new information or rendered it probable that he would risk a violation of his rights under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether the claim is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee takes note of the author’s claim that he has exhausted all effective domestic remedies available to him. In the absence of any objection by the State party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 5 2 (b) of the Optional Protocol have been met. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory when there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated by articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (para. 12). The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.37 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, 38 and that it is generally for organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice.39 7.5 In the present case, the Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author made several inconsistent statements during asylum proceedings, that the Board made a comprehensive and thorough examination of the evidence submitted by him, that he is trying to use the Committee as an appellate body to have the factual circumstances of his asylum application reassessed, and that he has failed to establish a prima facie case for admissibility purposes regarding the alleged violation of articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. 7.6 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the Board often makes mistakes and that its decision of 28 April 2015 is manifestly unreasonable and arbitrary. The Committee observes, however, that the author has not identified any irregularities in the decisionmaking process, or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. It considers that, while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the authorities of the State party, he has not shown that those conclusions were clearly arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. 7.7 The Committee further observes that the author’s request for asylum on the grounds of his fear of persecution by the Taliban because he escaped from them, after they had kidnapped him in order to force him to commit a suicide attack, was rejected by the 37 38 39 See, for example, communication No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2. See, for example, communications No. 2344/2014, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 2 November 2015, para. 8.4, and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, for example, E.P. and F.P. v. Denmark, para. 8.4. 9