CCPR/C/117/D/2493/2014 there is a high threshold for providing substantial grounds to establish that a real risk of irreparable harm exists.21 In making this assessment, all relevant facts and circumstances must be considered, including the general human rights situation in the author’s country of origin.22 8.3 In the present case, the Committee has noted the argument that if returned to Somalia, the author would be at risk of being subjected to ill-treatment by Al-Shabaab and also because he belongs to a minority clan that has always been “suppressed”. He claims that he has been threatened by Al-Shabaab with ill-treatment because he refused to join them, and also that he was imprisoned in 2013 after being falsely accused of theft and was beaten and had his leg burned because he belonged to a minority clan. 8.4 The Committee notes that from the material on file it appears that the Danish immigration authorities — the Danish Immigration Service and the Refugee Appeals Board — thoroughly examined each of the author’s claims, and in particular they assessed the threats allegedly received by the author in Somalia from Al-Shabaab, as well as his allegations of ill-treatment in prison in Somalia because of belonging to a minority clan. The Committee observes that the State party’s immigration authorities found these allegations to be inconsistent and implausible, as well as unsubstantiated on several grounds. In particular, the State party’s immigration authorities considered that the author’s statements concerning the approaches by Al-Shabaab members and his escape from them in November 2011 were vague and inconsistent; that his father’s conflict with the Habar Gidir clan dated back a long time, to 17 or 18 years ago; and that the author himself had never experienced conflict with that clan, and even though he claims he was falsely accused of theft and was imprisoned because he belonged to a minority clan, he was nevertheless released with the assistance of a council of elders that helped to pay for his release. 8.5 In this connection, the Committee notes that the author claims that he underwent surgery on two occasions because his leg had been burned in prison in Somalia. In support of his allegations, the author submits a copy of a medical report in Danish; however, the Committee observes that the position of the State party, which remains unrefuted by the author, is that his leg was treated medically due to a tuberculosis infection and not because of ill-treatment that he claims to have suffered in prison in Somalia. In addition, the Committee notes that the State party’s immigration authorities assessed the general conditions in Qoryooley regarding the risk of harm from the conflict with Al-Shabaab, but could not reach the conclusion that the general security situation in the area was of such a nature that everybody returning there may be deemed to be at a real risk of abuse or illtreatment. 8.6 The Committee recalls its jurisprudence that important weight should be given to the assessment conducted by the State party, unless it is found that the evaluation was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, 23 and that it is generally for the organs of States parties to the Covenant to review or evaluate facts and evidence in order to determine 21 22 23 decision adopted on 12 November 2010; and No. 692/1996, A.R.J. v. Australia, Views adopted on 28 July 1997, para. 6.6. See, for example, 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. Ibid. See communications No. 2007/2010, X. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 26 March 2014, para. 9.2; No. 2272/2013, P.T. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 1 April 2015, para. 7.3; No. 1833/2008, X. v. Sweden, Views adopted on 1 November 2011, para. 5.18; and No. 2347/2014, K.G. v. Denmark, Views adopted on 22 March 2016, para. 7.4. 11