CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 party considers that the inconsistencies and contradictions contained in the author’s file provide the Committee with a strong basis to seriously question his credibility. From the author 9.1 In additional comments made on 21 April 2017, the author states that the evidence submitted to the Committee on 24 October 2016 (the letters from a member of the trade union and from the author’s priest) is critical as it demonstrates that he was instrumental in the legal action that the trade union filed against the police. He claims that this evidence was not taken into account by the officers during the humanitarian and compassionate and pre-removal risk assessment applications. He also explains that the evidence was not considered by the Federal Court as any evidence that has not been previously considered by officers cannot be brought before the Federal Court during the judicial review. 9.2 The author reiterates that documentary evidence is difficult to obtain and notes that, as mentioned in the letter of the trade union official, the Government has not yet issued the committee report which contains evidence regarding the death of his cousin, R.C. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 10.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 10.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required by article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure of investigation or settlement. The Committee notes that the author has exhausted all available domestic remedies, in compliance with the requirements of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. 10.3 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations under article 9 (1) are incompatible ratione materiae with the Covenant. In that connection, it notes that the author has not provided any information, evidence or explanation of how his rights under article 9 (1) would be violated by the State party through his removal to Sri Lanka in a manner that would pose a substantial risk of irreparable harm such as that contemplated under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 10.4 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations under articles 6 (1) and 7 are insufficiently substantiated. However, the Committee is of the view that, for purposes of admissibility, the complainant has provided sufficient information as to the risk of irreparable harm that he would allegedly face in case of return to Sri Lanka. Accordingly, the Committee declares the claim admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 11.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 11.2 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 article 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 12