Advance unedited version CCPR/C/129/D/3106/2018-3122/2018 The Committee recalls that in its 2019 concluding observations on the second periodic report of Angola, it expressed regret on the lack of implementation mechanisms for the law on the right to asylum and refugee status adopted in 2015, including the lack of asylum procedures.21 In view of the lack of any explanation or other relevant information provided by the State party on this matter, the Committee concludes that the State party has failed to demonstrate the existence of any domestic remedies available for contesting an expulsion decree in order to enable the authors to assert their rights under the Covenant. The Committee considers therefore that it is not precluded by article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 6.4 The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims under article 14 of the Covenant that if returned to Turkey, they would face the risks of being subjected to an unfair trial, convicted based on their open association with the Hizmet movement, and being arbitrarily detained and ill-treated. The Committee considers, however, that these claims cannot be dissociated from those presented under article 7 of the Covenant, and will therefore examine them under that article and not under article 14. 6.5 The Committee considers that the authors’ claims under articles 7 and 13 of the Covenant, have been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility. The Committee thus declares these claims admissible and proceeds with their examination of the merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as required under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes that the State party has not replied to the authors’ claims concerning the merits of the case. In the absence of any explanations from the State party in this respect, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, provided they have been sufficiently substantiated. 7.3 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that deporting them and their families to Turkey would expose them to a risk of irreparable harm, in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. The Committee notes the authors’ argument that they and their families would face persecution by the Turkish authorities as a consequence of their real or perceived association with the Gülen movement. 7.4 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 articles 6 and 7 of the Covenant (para. 12). The risk must be personal22 and there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists. 23 Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.24 The Committee also recalls that it is generally for the organs of States parties to examine the facts and evidence of the case in question in order to determine whether such a risk exists, 25 unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 26 7.5 The Committee notes that in the present case, the State party has not demonstrated that the administrative and/or judicial authorities have conducted an individualized 21 22 23 24 25 26 8 Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Angola (CCPR/C/AGO/CO/2), 22 March 2019, para. 39. K. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/114/D/2393/2014), para. 7.3, and P.T. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/113/D/2272/2013), para. 7.2. X v. Sweden (CCPR/C/103/D/1833/2008), para. 5.18. Ibid. Pillai et al. v. Canada (CCPR/C/101/D/1763/2008), para. 11.4, and Z.H. v. Australia (CCPR/C/107/D/1957/2010), para. 9.3. For example, K. v. Denmark, para. 7.4.