CCPR/C/116/D/2327/2014 10.4 The Committee takes note that the State party’s authorities, after examining the evidence and oral testimony provided by the author in her refugee claim and PRRA application as well as evidence concerning the human rights situation in Bangladesh, found that the author had not shown that she would be at risk if she were returned to Bangladesh. The Refugee Protection Division found that she was not credible concerning the threats she and her mother allegedly received after her brother’s murder; that the statements she provided from other individuals to establish that she had been threatened did not mention her; that she did not provide any evidence to support her claims that the agents of persecution who allegedly murdered her brother had important judicial and political contacts; that there was no evidence that any individuals used their contacts to influence the outcome of the murder trial or the subsequent appeal; and that her assertion that the authorities of Bangladesh were unable or unwilling to protect her from the alleged threats was not substantiated. The Committee further notes, inter alia, that although the author asserts that her husband and children are in hiding, she has not responded to the State party’s observation that several members of her family, including her husband, four of their five children and numerous aunts, uncles and cousins reside in Bangladesh, and that there is no information that any of them is at risk of harm from the alleged killers of the author’s brother. While taking note of the reports cited by the author concerning corruption in Bangladesh, the Committee notes the State party’s observation that its decision makers found that corruption is “rampant” in Bangladesh but nevertheless considered that there was no credible evidence of a personal risk of harm to the author. The Committee considers that the author’s claims before the State party’s authorities were thoroughly examined by the Refugee Protection Division and the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Officer. 10.5 While noting the serious diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety, the Committee considers that the author’s medical condition in itself, in the circumstances of this case, is not sufficient to substantiate the risk alleged by the author concerning her removal to Bangladesh.18 Although the author asserts that she did not have a fair opportunity to contest the merits of the decision of the Refugee Protection Division before the Federal Court, she does not specify the basis of her application for leave and judicial review and does not comment on the State party’s observation that such applications are granted where there is a “fairly arguable case” or “a serious question to be determined”.19 10.6 Accordingly, the Committee considers that the author has not identified any irregularity in the decision-making process, or any risk factor that the State party’s authorities failed to take properly into account. The Committee considers that while the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, she has not shown that they were arbitrary or manifestly erroneous, or amounted to a denial of justice. In the light of the foregoing, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm to the author, as contemplated by articles 6 (1) and 7 of the Covenant. 20 This decision is without prejudice to the outcome of the author’s pending application for permanent residence on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. 18 19 20 14 See communication No. 2049/2011, Z. v. Australia, Views adopted on 18 July 2014, paras. 9.4 and 9.5; Lin v. Australia, paras. 2.3 and 9.4; and communications No. 1315/2004, Singh v. Canada, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 March 2006, note 1 and para. 6.3; and communication No. 1897/2009, S. Y. L. v. Australia, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 24 July 2013, para. 8.4. See X. v. Canada, para. 9.5. See general comment No. 31, para. 12.