CCPR/C/117/D/2415/2014 Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must, in accordance with rule 93 of its rules of procedure, decide whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 7.3 The Committee notes the author’s claim that his deportation to Pakistan would expose him to a violation of articles 6 and 7 because of the intelligence services’ interest in him. The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the author’s claims with respect to articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant should be declared inadmissible owing to insufficient substantiation. The Committee observes that the author’s claims under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant were thoroughly assessed by the State party’s authorities, which found that the information submitted by the author about the motive for seeking asylum and his account of the events that caused his fear of being killed or tortured if returned to Pakistan was not coherent or credible. 7.4 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 31,7 in which it refers to the obligation of States parties not to extradite, deport, expel or otherwise remove a person from their territory where there are substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk of irreparable harm, such as that contemplated in articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant. The Committee has also indicated that the risk must be personal and that the threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists is high. 8 The Committee further recalls its jurisprudence that considerable weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party and that it is generally for the organs of the States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine whether such risk exists,9 unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or to a denial of justice.10 The Committee observes that the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities, but the information before the Committee does not show that those findings are manifestly unreasonable or that the authorities had failed to take properly into account any risk factor. Moreover, the author has not pointed to any procedural irregularities in the decision-making procedure by the Danish Immigration Service or the Refugee Appeals Board. 7.5. In the light of the above considerations, the Committee considers that the author has not sufficiently substantiated the allegations under articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, the Committee considers these claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 7 8 9 10 8 See general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, para. 12. See communications No. 2007/2010, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2; No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6; and No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18. See communication No. 1957/2010, Lin v. Australia, Views adopted on 21 March 2013, para. 9.3. See, inter alia, ibid. and communication No. 541/1993, Errol Simms v. Jamaica, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 April 1995, para. 6.2.