CCPR/C/121/D/2487/2014 exists. 28 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.29 11.3 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such a risk exists. 30 11.4 The Committee notes the author’s contention that his removal to Sri Lanka would expose him to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant, because: (a) he provided eyewitness evidence to trade union leaders in the framework of a legal action against the police who, on 30 May 2011, during a demonstration in the “trade zone” area, shot at demonstrators and killed his cousin, R.C.; (b) as a result of his testimony against the police, he received threatening phone calls and was beaten until he lost consciousness by four men who forcibly entered his home; (c) his family continued to receive threatening phone calls after his departure; and (d) as a person returning to Sri Lanka, he would be perceived as a traitor who has discredited Sri Lanka abroad. 11.5 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s allegations of risk have been thoroughly assessed by several independent and impartial State party decision makers who determined that the author had not substantiated the allegations. The Committee particularly notes the pre-removal risk assessment officer’s conclusion that the author did not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate his allegations of risk. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that the author’s name does not appear in any of the news articles related to the killing of R.C. and the judicial inquiry, and that he did not provide evidence to substantiate that the alleged perpetrator of the incidents on 10 and 28 June 2011 were Sri Lankan government officials or police or that he had provided evidence to the trade union leaders who took legal action against the police. 11.6 In that connection, the Committee notes that on 24 October 2016, the author provided to the Committee a letter from a member of the Free Trade Zone and General Services Employees Union stating that the author’s testimony as an eyewitness to the killing of R.C. was key for the legal action filed by the union against the police. He also provided a letter from the priest who conducted the funeral services for R.C. confirming that he was an eyewitness to the killing of R.C. and that many had their lives threatened by unidentified government forces and police. The Committee notes that this evidence was not made available to the pre-removal risk assessment and humanitarian and compassionate officers, as it was obtained after the two processes had terminated. It also notes the author’s explanation that this evidence was not considered by the Federal Court, as no new evidence not previously considered by officers can be filed during a judicial review. 11.7 The Committee notes that, while the letters give indications that the author witnessed the killing of his cousin R.C. by the police and that he provided testimony to the union officials for their legal action against the police, they do not provide any information as to the assault that the author allegedly suffered following his presence as a witness at the crime scene of his cousin’s death, or that he would be at risk of irreparable harm if he were to be returned to Sri Lanka. The Committee also observes that the author has provided a medical note, according to which he was medically treated from 1 to 7 July 2011 “for his physical injuries due to swelling”. However, the Committee considers that this document does not demonstrate that the injuries would necessarily have been provoked by the alleged attack on the author by four unknown men on 28 June 2011. The Committee therefore considers that the author has failed to provide conclusive evidence to substantiate his allegations of risk. 28 29 30 See communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. Ibid. See communications No. 1763/2008, Pillai et al. v. Canada, Views adopted on 25 March 2011, para. 11.4; and No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. 13