CCPR/C/119/D/2602/2015 exists. Thus, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.9 7.4 The Committee also recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to examine the facts and evidence of the case in order to determine whether such a risk exists, unless it can be established that the assessment was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of justice. 10 7.5 In this context, the Committee notes the author’s assertion that the State party’s authorities have failed to assess the risk to life for him and his family if they returned to Albania. While noting that there are reports of human rights violations in Albania in relation to blood-feud crimes (CCPR/C/ALB/CO/2, para. 10), the Committee observes that the asylum applications of the author and his family were thoroughly examined by the State party’s authorities, which found that neither the author nor his family were directly targeted by the blood feud and that the 2004 and 2008 attacks on the author and the 2014 attack on his nephew were not necessarily connected with the blood feud, concluding that they had failed to establish a specific and individual risk of irreparable harm, if removed. It was established that the impugned attacks related to the acts of private individuals and that the author did not allege that he had contacted the Albanian authorities in order to seek protection from the conflicting families and there was nothing on file to demonstrate why he would not do so in the future. The authorities found that the conflict was outdated and lacked intensity as the last killing had occurred in 2002 and the perpetrators had been prosecuted and punished, whereas the author has not been personally contacted or threatened for a long period of time. On the other hand, the State party’s authorities indicated inconsistencies in the statements of the author and his wife regarding the dates and reasons for leaving Albania, which undermined the credibility of their claims. While the author submitted that he had received a threat from one of the conflicting families, his wife stated that the issuance of her passport prompted their departure. Furthermore, it appeared contradictory that, given the circumstances of the ongoing blood feud, the author did not move his residence to Italy in 2004 while visiting nor did he seek asylum there. Although the author disagrees with the factual conclusions of the State party’s authorities on the asylum applications, he has failed to demonstrate that the decision to refuse him protection under section 7 of the Aliens Act was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. 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. In the light of the above, the Committee cannot conclude that the information before it shows that the decision to remove the author and his family to Albania was arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice. Accordingly, the Committee cannot conclude that if it proceeds with the forced removal to Albania of the author and his family, the State party would violate their rights under article 6 of the Covenant. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the removal of the author and his family to Albania would not violate their rights under article 6 of the Covenant. 9 10 See, inter alia, 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. See, inter alia, X v. Denmark, para. 9.2, P.T. v. Denmark, para. 7.3, and X v. Sweden, para. 5.18. 9