CCPR/C/125/D/2238/2013 would be unable to lead a life free of personal risk in another part of India outside Punjab; and (c) they had not demonstrated that they suffered any incidents while living in Delhi or provided any evidence of a concrete risk of harm to them in Delhi. The authors’ application to the Federal Court for leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Immigration and Refugee Board was dismissed. The pre-removal risk assessment officer, on the basis of the existence of an internal flight alternative and on the lack of probative value of the new documents submitted by the authors (see para. 6.4), found that there was no serious reason to believe that their lives would be at risk or that they would be victims of treatment incompatible with article 7 of the Covenant. The judicial review of the decision of the pre-removal risk assessment officer was also denied by the Federal Court. Lastly, the authors’ application for permanent residence in the State party on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was rejected, given that the authors had not demonstrated that their return to India would constitute unusual, undeserved or disproportionate hardship for them. 8.5 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to assess facts and evidence in a case, unless it is found that such assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 23 The material before the Committee does not show that the proceedings before the authorities in the State party suffered from any such defects. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to substantiate their claims for purposes of admissibility, under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant, and declares this part of the communication inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.6 The Committee further notes the authors’ claim that the 12-month ineligibility period for submission of pre-removal risk assessment applications for claimants whose claims have been denied deprived them of any effective remedy in violation of article 13 of the Covenant. The Committee notes that this article lays down several conditions regarding alien expulsion that must be complied with by the State party concerned and that the expulsion shall be “in accordance with the law”. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that “the reference to ‘law’ in this context is to the domestic law of the State party concerned, though of course the relevant provisions of domestic law must in themselves be compatible with the provisions of the Covenant”.24 The Committee also recalls that “the interpretation of domestic law is essentially a matter for the courts and authorities of the State party concerned. It is not within the powers or functions of the Committee to evaluate whether the competent authorities of the State party in question have interpreted and applied the domestic law correctly in the case before it under the Optional Protocol, unless it is established that they have not interpreted and applied it in good faith or that it is evident that there has been an abuse of power.” 25 In the present communication, the material before the Committee does not show that the proceedings before the authorities in the State party suffered from any such defects. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to substantiate their claims under article 13 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility and concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 As to the authors’ claims under article 14 of the Covenant that they were not afforded the rights to a hearing and to an effective remedy, the Committee recalls that the concept of a “suit at law” under article 14 (1) of the Covenant is based on the nature of the right in question rather than on the status of one of the parties. 26 In the present communication, the proceedings relate to the authors’ right to receive protection in the territory of the State party. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence 27 that proceedings relating to an alien’s expulsion do not fall within the ambit of a determination of “rights and 23 24 25 26 27 P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.3; B.L. v. Australia (CCPR/C/112/D/2053/2011); Z v. Australia (CCPR/C/111/D/2049/2011), para. 9.3; A.A. v. Canada (CCPR/C/103/D/1819/2008); and Pillai et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/101/D/1763/2008), para. 11.4. Maroufidou v. Sweden (CCPR/C/12/D/58/1979), para. 9.3. Ibid., para. 10.1. Human Rights Committee, Y.L. v. Canada, communication No. 112/1981, paras. 9.1–9.2; Casanovas v. France, communication No. 441/1990, para. 5.2; and Dimitrov v. Bulgaria (CCPR/C/85/D/1030/2001), para. 8.3. See P.K. v. Canada. 9